Table 4:
Comparison between [18F]fluciclovine PET/CT and conventional imaging in preoperative lymph node staging of high-risk prostate cancer patients
| Patient-based analysis (n=57) | Region-based analysis (n=228) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| [18F]fluciclovine PET/CT | Conventional Imaging | p-value | [18F]fluciclovine PET/CT | Conventional Imaging | p-value | |
| %Sensitivity (95% CI) | 55.3 (43.0–68.0) | 33.3 (21.0–47.0) | <0.01 | 54.8 (46.0–65.0) | 19.4 (11.0–26.0) | <0.01 |
| %Specificity (95% CI) | 84.8 (75.0–94.7) | 84.1 (73.3–94.4) | 1.00 | 96.4 (94.2–99.0) | 94.6 (92.3–97.2) | 0.37 |
| %PPV (95% CI) | 81.5 (69.2–93.3) | 72.2 (55.6–88.9) | 0.35 | 85.0 (76.9–94.9) | 57.4 (40.0–75.0) | 0.01 |
| %NPV (95% CI) | 60.8 (47.8–73.7) | 51.2 (40.0–63.0) | 0.02 | 85.1 (81.4–89.1) | 75.8 (71.4–80.4) | <0.01 |
| %Accuracy (95% CI) | 68.5 (59.4–78.1) | 56.3 (47.2–65.7) | <0.01 | 85.1 (81.6–88.5) | 74.1 (69.8–78.6) | <0.01 |