Skip to main content
. 2021 Jan 8;31(7):5222–5233. doi: 10.1007/s00330-020-07478-1

Table 1.

The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV of PET/CT and MRI in diagnosing RLNs and CLNs in 218 patients

Site Test No. of patients FN TP TN FP Sensitivity Specificity PPV NPV
% 95%CI (%) p % 95%CI (%) p % 95%CI (%) p % 95%CI (%) p
Retropharyngeal lymph node metastasis PET/CT 79 22 57 123 16

72.2

(57/79)

(62.3–82.1)

88.5

(123/139)

(83.2–93.8)

78.1

(57/73)

(68.6–87.6)

84.8

(123/145)

(79.0–90.6)
MRI 7 72 126 13

91.1

(72/79)

(84.8–97.4)

90.6

(126/139)

(85.7–95.5)

84.7

(72/85)

(77.0–92.4)

94.7

(126/133)

(90.9–98.5)
PET/CT vs MRI 0.004 0.690 0.284 0.007
Neck lymph node metastasis PET/CT 89 3 86 94 35

96.6

(86/89)

(92.8–1.0)

72.9

(94/129)

(65.2–80.6)

71.1

(86/121)

(63.0–79.2)

96.9

(94/97)

(93.5–1.0)
MRI 21 68 124 5

76.4

(68/89)

(67.6–85.2)

96.1

(124/129)

(92.8–99.4)

93.2

(68/73)

(87.4–99.0)

85.5

(124/145)

(79.8–91.2)
PET/CT vs MRI < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 0.004

Statistical comparisons were made using McNemar’s paired-sample test, χ2 test

Abbreviations: RLN, retropharyngeal lymph node; CLN, cervical lymph node; CWU, conventional workup; PET/CT, 18F_fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography; FN, false negative; TP, true positive; TN, true negative; FP, false positive; PPV, positive predictive value; NPV, negative predictive value