Skip to main content
. 2014 Jan 6;15(1):279–289. doi: 10.1120/jacmp.v15i1.4600

Table 3.

Comparison of ITVPET with ITVCT for different segmentation methods

Notation
Volume±SEM(cm3)
p‐value
(ITVPETITVCT)±SEM
Percent Difference (%)
ITV15%
a
10.93±2.71
0.01 c
+1.05±0.89
±10.7%
ITV35%
4.15±0.99
<0.01
c
4.17±1.24
50.1%
ITV42%
3.12±3.93
<0.01
c
5.21±1.38
62.5%
ITV2.5
b
6.93±2.14
<0.01
c
1.99±0.73
22.3%
ITV2.5
6.36±1.67
0.14
1.96±0.60
23.6%
ITVSUVmean
7.02±1.67
0.33
1.30±0.65
15.7%
ITVVMSBR
7.89±1.76
0.39
0.43±0.55
5.15%
ITVCT
8.32±2.16
a

a N=18. Statistics calculated using paired values.

b

b N=22.

c

c Statistically significant differences.

SEM=standard error of the mean.