Table 6.

Accuracy of Imaging Modalities

Authors, Year	EUS	MRI	CT	SRS	68Ga-PET/CT
Albers et al., 2017 [33]
n	27	27			27
Sensitivity, %	100	74			78
Barbe et al., 2012a [32]
n	75	67
Sensitivity, %	83	74
Lastoria et al., 2016 [45]
n					11
Sensitivity, %					100
van Asselt et al., 2015a,b,c [36]
n	35			35
Sensitivity, %	97			51
Morgat et al., 2016c [35]
n			76	76	76
Sensitivity, %			60	20	76
Specificity, %			50	50	100
Gauger et al., 2003 [43]
n	13
Sensitivity, %	92
Hellman et al., 2005d [44]
n	22/8
Sensitivity, %	64/50
Goroshi et al., 2016c [39]
n			13		13
Sensitivity, %			63		100
Wamsteker et al., 2003c [42]
n	10
Sensitivity, %	82
Langer et al., 2004 [34]
n	16		13	17
Sensitivity, %	75		54	71
Lewis et al., 2012 [28]
n	35	8	43	32
Sensitivity, %	100	88	81	84	–
Camera et al., 2011c [40]
n			11
Sensitivity, %			78
Skogseid et al., 1998e [41]
n			15/10	15/10
Sensitivity, %			57/20	75/0
Waldmann et al., 2009 [37]
n	20		24	24
Sensitivity, %	100		62	54
Yim et al., 1998c [38]
n				16
Sensitivity, %				58

Abbreviation: n, number of included patients in the study.

^aResults from analysis for pNETs > 1 cm.

^bNot every patient received an MRI or CT (either MRI or CT), so sensitivity could not be extracted.

^cSensitivity based on per-lesion analysis in n patients.

^dNo reference standard was described for the index test. Results in table are distracted from the article with biochemical signs (n = 22)/histopathology (n = 8) as reference standard.

^ePopulation and sensitivity for major disease/limited disease.