. 2020 Jul 13;10:81. doi: 10.1186/s13550-020-00669-3

Table 3.

Overview of modeling results

Performance of model	PFS	OS
FDG PET-model, c-index (95% CI) Training Validation	0.67 (0.52–0.82) 0.66 ( 0.57–0.78)	0.72 (0.62–0.84) 0.47 (0.36–0.62)
CT-model, c-index (95% CI) Training Validation	0.66 (0.56–0.76) 0.54 (0.44–0.67)	0.71 (0.59–0.80) 0.59 (0.47–0.74)
SUVmax, c-index (95% CI) Training Validation	0.55 (0.44–0.60) –	0.54 (0.42–0.68) –
SUVmean, c-index (95% CI) Training Validation	0.52 (0.40–0.66) –	0.52 (0.40–0.66) –
Volume, c-index (95% CI) Training Validation	0.60 (0.49–0.73) 0.57 (0.48–0.67)	0.62 (0.52–0.72) 0.63 (0.50–0.75)

Performance of model

PFS

FDG PET-model, c-index (95% CI)

Training

Validation

0.67 (0.52–0.82)

0.66 ( 0.57–0.78)

0.72 (0.62–0.84)

0.47 (0.36–0.62)

CT-model, c-index (95% CI)

Training

Validation

0.66 (0.56–0.76)

0.54 (0.44–0.67)

0.71 (0.59–0.80)

0.59 (0.47–0.74)

SUVmax, c-index (95% CI)

Training

Validation

0.55 (0.44–0.60)

–

0.54 (0.42–0.68)

–

SUVmean, c-index (95% CI)

Training

Validation

0.52 (0.40–0.66)

–

0.52 (0.40–0.66)

–

Volume, c-index (95% CI)

Training

Validation

0.60 (0.49–0.73)

0.57 (0.48–0.67)

0.62 (0.52–0.72)

0.63 (0.50–0.75)

PFS progression-free-survival, OS overall survival