. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2021 May 1.

Published in final edited form as: J Nucl Med. 2020 Apr 3;61(11):1678–1683. doi: 10.2967/jnumed.120.242248

Table 1.

Differences in lesion quantification between DDG-retro and the three other methods of gating/reconstruction. Results are presented as mean differences (with standard error on the mean difference) along with the first and third quartile. The results from Post-hoc testing of the transformed data are also provided. The critical p value for statistical significance was 0.017 (lowered from 0.05 to allow for multiple comparisons).

Pairwise comparison Parameter / DDG-retro with:	Number of lesions	Mean difference (DDG-retro – Other)	25^th, 75^th percentile on difference (DDG-retro – Other)	Significance (p; uncorrected for multiple comparisons)
SUV max / RPM-gated	87	0.66 ± 0.1 g/mL	0.00, 0.87 g/mL	<0.0005
SUV max / ungated matched	107	1.3 ± 0.2 g/mL	0.06, 2.0 g/mL	<0.0005
SUV max / ungated full	107	1.6 ± 0.2 g/mL	0.38, 2.0 g/mL	<0.0005
SUV mean / RPM-gated	54	0.44 ± 0.1 g/mL	-0.01, 0.60 g/mL	0.003
SUV mean / ungated matched	64	0.97 ± 0.2 g/mL	0.01, 1.60 g/mL	<0.0005
SUV mean / ungated full	64	1.2 ± 0.2 g/mL	0.36, 1.59 g/mL	<0.0005
Lesion volume / RPM-gated	54	-0.30 ± 0.1 cm³	-0.52, 0.03 cm³	0.009
Lesion volume / ungated matched	64	-0.70 ± 0.2 cm³	-0.98, -0.01 cm³	0.005
Lesion volume / ungated full	64	-0.83 ± 0.2 cm³	-1.05, -0.03 cm³	0.001