Table 2.
Position emission tomography/computed tomography in differential diagnosis of pancreatic carcinoma and mass-forming pancreatitis
| Ref.1 | Study design | PC/CP | SUV(max) of PC | SUV(max) of CP | Cutoff value | SE | SP | PPV | NPV | LR(+) | LR(-) | Accuracy |
| (mean ± SD) | (mean ± SD) | |||||||||||
| Stollfuss et al[25] | R | 43/30 | 3.16 ± 1.22 | 1.00 ± 0.55 | 1.53 | 93.18% | 93.10% | 95.35% | 90.00% | 13.51 | 0.07 | 93.15% |
| Mertz et al[21] | R | 31/4 | - | - | 2.80 | 87.09% | 50.00% | 93.33% | 33.33% | 1.74 | 0.25 | 82.86% |
| van Kouwen et al[19] | R | 32/77 | - | - | -2 | 90.62% | 87.01% | 74.35% | 95.71% | 6.97 | 0.11 | 88.07% |
| Lytras et al[18] | R | 54/25 | - | - | -3 | 78.00% | 55.00% | 78.00% | 55.00% | - | - | 64.00% |
1
Fluorodeoxyglucose-position emission tomography (FDG-PET) scan without computed tomography (CT);
2
Results were judged to be abnormal if focal accumulation of the tracer was detected in the area of the pancreas. Faint and/or diffuse FDG uptake in the pancreatic region (i.e., uptake slightly higher than the surrounding background, but clearly lower than the liver) was not considered suspicious for pancreatic cancer;
3
Lesions measured visually. SE: Sensitivity; SP: Specificity; NPV: Negative predictive value; PPV: Positive predictive value; R: Retrospective study; P: Prospective study.