. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2022 Apr 1.

Published in final edited form as: Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2021 Jan 20;44(4):619–624. doi: 10.1007/s00270-021-02767-8

Table 2:

Planning software performance summary

	MCT OFF	MCT ON		Subgroup analysis (10 CBCTs)
Vascular tree successfully extracted (n=18)	10	18			MC* OFF	MC* ON	p value
True positive tumor-supplying vessels (n=94)	48	76	All tumors (n=22)	Sensitivity	63% (48/76)	83% (63/76)	0.002
True positive tumor-supplying vessels (n=94)	48	76	All tumors (n=22)	PPV	57% (48/84)	79% (63/80)	0.001
False positive tumor-supplying vessels	38	20	Central lesions (n=10)	Sensitivity	76% (28/37)	89% (33/37)	0.060
Sensitivity	51% (48/94)	81% (76/94)	Central lesions (n=10)	PPV	61% (28/46)	79% (33/42)	0.022
Virtual injection prediction accuracy among true positive tumor-supplying vessels	21/48	64/76	Peripheral lesions (n=12)	Sensitivity	51% (20/39)	77% (30/39)	0.015
	21/48	64/76	Peripheral lesions (n=12)	PPV	53% (20/38)	79% (30/38)	0.006