Table 2. Estimated Proportion of Agreement in Metastatic Lesion Detection Between PET and CIM, Accounting for Intrapatient Clustering Effects by GEE Regression Model Analysis.
Modality | All patients |
HNPC patients |
CRPC patients |
|||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||
PET | CT | BS | All lesions | Lymph node lesions |
Bone lesions |
Visceral lesions |
All lesions | Lymph node lesions |
Bone lesions |
Visceral lesions |
All lesions | Lymph node lesions |
Bone lesions |
Visceral lesions |
P | N/E | _ | 0.30 (0.17–0.48) | 0.39 (0.21-0.62) | 0.24 (0.11–0.46) | 0.18 (0.06–0.42) | 0.40 (0.20–0.65) | 0.33 (0.08–0.73) | 0.34 (0.12–0.67) | 0.23 (0.07–0.56) | 0.22 (0.10–0.42) | 0.50 (0.45–0.54) | 0.16 (0.05–0.42) | 0.12 (0.02–0.49) |
| ||||||||||||||
P | _ | N/E | 0.44 (0.28–0.61) | NA | 0.22 (0.12–0.36) | NA | 0.55 (0.32–0.76) | NA | 0.28 (0.12–0.52) | NA | 0.31 (0.14–0.57) | NA | 0.18 (0.07–0.38) | NA |
| ||||||||||||||
P | N/E* | 0.44 (0.28–0.61) | 0.90 (0.75–0.96) | 0.22 (0.12–0.36) | 0.41 (0.17–0.69) | 0.55 (0.32–0.76) | 0.84 (0.44–0.97) | 0.28 (0.12–0.52) | 0.39 (0.11–0.77) | 0.31 (0.14–0.57) | 0.93 (0.83–0.97) | 0.18 (0.07–0.38) | 0.42 (0.12–0.80) | |
| ||||||||||||||
N/E | P | _ | 0.07 (0.04–0.14) | 0.07 (0.01–0.39) | 0.09 (0.05–0.17) | 0.05 (0.01–0.28) | 0.06 (0.01–0.24) | 0.17 (0.02–0.63) | 0.07 (0.02–0.21) | 0.00 (0.00–0.00) | 0.08 (0.04–0.16) | 0.00 (0.00–0.00) | 0.10 (0.04–0.21) | 0.08 (0.01–0.46) |
N/E | _ | P | 0.03 (0.01–0.08) | NA | 0.05 (0.02–0.12) | NA | 0.03 (0.01–0.19) | NA | 0.06 (0.01–0.29) | NA | 0.03 (0.01–0.08) | NA | 0.04 (0.02–0.11) | NA |
| ||||||||||||||
N/E | P* | 0.08 (0.04–0.16) | 0.07 (0.01–0.39) | 0.10 (0.06–0.18) | 0.05 (0.01–0.28) | 0.07 (0.01–0.27) | 0.17 (0.02–0.63) | 0.08 (0.02–0.27) | 0.00 (0.00–0.00) | 0.09 (0.05–0.17) | 0.00 (0.00–0.00) | 0.11 (0.06–0.21) | 0.08 (0.01–0.46) |
Combined CIM (CT and BS).
P = positive; N/E = negative/equivocal; NA = not applicable.
Data in parentheses are 95% CIs.