Skip to main content

View full-text article in PMC

. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2017 Sep 1.

Published in final edited form as: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2016 Apr 18;43(10):1773–1783. doi: 10.1007/s00259-016-3383-8

Table 2.

Diagnostic performance of fluciclovine PET-CT vs. clinical CT

	Fluciclovine	CT	P value
Prostate/bed (n=51/53)
True positives	31	4	-
True negatives	9	14	-
False positives	7	2	-
False negatives	4	31	-
%Sensitivity (95% CI)	88.6 (72.3,96.3)	11.4 (3.7,27.7)	<0.001^*
%Specificity (95% CI)	56.3 (30.6,79.2)	87.5 (60.4,97.8)	<0.001^*
%Accuracy (95% CI)	78.4 (64.7–88.7)	35.3 (22.4–49.9)	<0.001^*
%PPV¹ (95% CI)	81.6 (65.1,91.7)	66.7 (24.1,94.0)	<0.001^*
%NPV² (95% CI)	69.2 (38.9,89.6)	31.1 (18.6,46.8)	<0.001^*

Extra prostate (n=41/53)
True positives	12	3	-
True negatives	15	15	-
False positives	0	0	-
False negatives	14	23	-
%Sensitivity (95% CI)	46.2 (27.1,66.38)	11.5 (3.0,31.3)	<0.001^*
%Specificity (95% CI)	100 (74.7,100)	100.0 (74.7,100)	0.32
%Accuracy (95% CI)	65.9 (49.4–79.9)	43.9 (28.5–60.3)	0.05
%PPV¹ (95% CI)	100 (69.8,100)	100.0 (31.0,100)	0.30
%NPV² (95% CI)	51.7 (32.9,70.1)	39.5 (24.5,56.5)	<0.001^*

¹

PPV= Positive predictive value;

²

NPV= Negative predictive value.

^*

Statistically significant