Skip to main content
. 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 3.

Diagnostic performance of fluciclovine PET-CT vs. clinical CT with contrast

Fluciclovine CT with contrast P value
Prostate/bed (n=29/30)
True positives 14 3 -
True negatives 6 9 -
False positives 5 2 -
False negatives 4 15 -
%Sensitivity (95% CI) 77.8 (51.8–92.6) 16.7 (4.4–42.3) <0.001*
%Specificity (95% CI) 54.6 (24.6,81.9) 81.8 (47.8,96.8) 0.17
%Accuracy (95% CI) 65.5 (45.7–82.1) 17.2 (5.8–35.8) <0.001*
%PPV1 (95% CI) 73.7 (48.6,89.9) 60.0 (17.0,92.7) 0.01*
%NPV2 (95% CI) 60.0 (27.4,86.3) 37.5 (19.6,59.2) 0.02*
Extra prostate (n=26/30)
True positives 9 3 -
True negatives 10 10 -
False positives 0 0 -
False negatives 7 13 -
%Sensitivity (95% CI) 56.3 (30.6,79.3) 18.8 (4.9,46.3) 0.03*
%Specificity (95% CI) 100 (65.5,100) 100.0 (65.5,100) 1
%Accuracy (95% CI) 73.1 (52.2–88.4) 50.0 (29.9–70.1) 0.09
%PPV1 (95% CI) 100 (62.9,100) 100.0 (31.0,100) 1
%NPV2 (95% CI) 58.8 (33.5,80.6) 43.5 (23.9,65.1) 0.3
1

PPV= Positive predictive value;

2

NPV= Negative predictive value.

*

- Statistically significant