TABLE 5.
Change in Diagnostic Thinking After Both PET Scans and Influence at End of Follow-up (ITT Population) (n = 190)*
| Influence was: | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Category | To benefit of patient | Not to benefit of patient | Neither to benefit nor disadvantage of patient | Missing |
| 18F-fluorocholine examination contributed more | ||||
| More accurate diagnosis | 6 (3.2) | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Diagnostic thinking was misled by PET | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| PET had no influence | 0 | 1 (0.5) | 1 (0.5) | 0 |
| Missing | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 18F-PSMA-1007 examination contributed more | ||||
| More accurate diagnosis | 88 (46.3) | 2 (1.1) | 10 (5.3) | 2 (1.1) |
| Diagnostic thinking was misled by PET | 1 (0.5) | 1 (0.5) | 2 (1.1) | 0 |
| PET had no influence | 0 | 0 | 1 (0.5) | 0 |
| Missing | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Both PET examinations contributed equally | ||||
| More accurate diagnosis | 27 (14.2) | 0 | 13 (6.8) | 0 |
| Diagnostic thinking was misled by PET | 0 | 5 (2.6) | 1 (0.5) | 0 |
| PET had no influence | 5 (2.6) | 2 (1.1) | 16 (8.4) | 0 |
| Missing | 0 | 0 | 1 (0.5) | 0 |
| Missing | ||||
| More accurate diagnosis | 1 (0.5) | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Diagnostic thinking was misled by PET | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| PET had no influence | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Missing | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 (2.1) |
*
Data are reported as numbers of patients, with percentages in parentheses.