TABLE 3:

Multiple Regression Analyses and Associaited ROC Performance and Diagnostic Accuracy of Models

Model, Covariate	Comparison	Odds Ratioa	p	Area Under the ROC Curve	Sens (%)	Spec (%)	Acc (%)
Unenhanced images unavailableb
CT quantitative
DL	1-HU increase	1.04 (1.02, 1.06)	0.0007	0.861 (0.787, 0.935)	90.2	77.3	85.7
RPEW	1% increase	0.93 (0.90, 0.96)	< 0.0001
CT quantitative and demographics
DL	1-HU increase	1.04 (1.02, 1.07)	0.0006	0.873 (0.799, 0.947)	86.6	84.1	85.7
RPEW	1% increase	0.93 (0.89, 0.95)	< 0.0001
Age	1-y increase	1.05 (1.01, 1.10)	0.03
CT quantitative, demographics, and history
DL	1-HU increase	1.03 (1.01, 1.06)	0.007	0.903 (0.841, 0.965)	89.0	79.5	85.7
RPEW	1% increase	0.94 (0.90, 0.97)	0.0001
PMH	Yes vs no	9.26 (3.30, 28.42)	< 0.0001
Unenhanced images availablec
CT quantitative
UA	1-HU increase	1.09 (1.084, 1.194)	< 0.0001	0.889 (0.819, 0.959)	88.7	85.0	87.3
APEW	1% increase	0.95 (0.919, 0.981)	0.002
CT quantitative and demographics
UA	1-HU increase	1.10 (1.05, 1.14)	< 0.0001	0.902 (0.836, 0.969)	87.1	87.5	87.3
APEW	1% increase	0.95 (0.92, 0.98)	0.003
Age	1-y increase	1.07 (1.02, 1.14)	0.011
CT quantitative, demographics, and history
UA	1-HU increase	1.09 (1.04, 1.15)	0.0003	0.927 (0.873, 0.980)	98.4	72.5	88.2
APEW	1% increase	0.96 (0.92, 0.99)	0.02
PMH	Yes vs no	11.06 (3.42, 41.53)	0.0001

Note—Values in parentheses are 95% confidence limits. Sens = sensitivity, Spec = specificity, Acc = accuracy, DL = lesion attenuation on intermediate-delay (1–3 minute) contrast-enhanced images, RPEW = relative percentage of enhancement washout, PMH = history of malignancy, UA = lesion attenuation on unenhanced images, APEW = absolute percentage of enhancement washout.

^aMalignant or benign.

^bn = 127 lesions.

^cn = 103 lesions.