Table 2.

Level-by-level diagnostic performance of three methods (CT, PET/CT with best SUVmax cut-off, and PET/CT with level-based modified SUVmax cut-off)

	TP	FN	TN	FP	Sensitivity	Specificity	PPV	NPV	Accuracy
					95 % CI	95 % CI	95 % CI	95 % CI	95 % CI
CT	12	16	215	7	42.9a,b	96.8	63.2	93.1	90.8c
					24.6–61.2	94.5–99.1	41.5–84.9	89.8–96.4	87.2–94.4
FDG-PET/CT using best SUVmax cut-off (3.5)	19	9	210	12	67.9a	94.6	61.3	95.9	91.6
					50.6–85.2	91.6–97.6	59.8–62.8	93.3–98.5	88.2–95.0
FDG-PET/CT usinglevel-based modified SUVmax cut-off	20	8	213	9	71.4b	95.9	69	96.4	93.2c
					54.7–88.1	93.3–98.5	67.6–70.5	93.9–98.9	90.1–96.3

TP true positive, FN false negative, TN true negative, FP false positive, PPV positive predictive value, NPV negative predictive value, CI confidence interval

^aThe sensitivity of FDG-PET/CT with best SUVmax cut-off (3.5) was significantly higher than that of CT (p = 0.023)

^bThe sensitivity of FDG-PET/CT with level-based modified SUVmax cut-off was significantly higher than that of CT (p = 0.013)

^cThe accuracy of FDG-PET/CT with level-based modified SUVmax cut-off was significantly higher than that of CT (p = 0.041)