Skip to main content

Table 3 Comparison of diagnostic performance among CECT, CECT plus PET/MRI, and CECT plus PET plus CA 19–9 and post-hoc pairwise comparison

From: Post-neoadjuvant treatment pancreatic cancer resectability and outcome prediction using CT, 18F-FDG PET/MRI and CA 19–9

 

CECT (A)

CECT plus PET/MRI (B)

CECT plus PET plus CA 19–9 (C)

p-value

p-value*

A vs. B

B vs. C

C vs. A

Pooled sensitivity (%)

66.2 (137/207)

86.0 (178/207)

84.5 (175/207)

< 0.001

< 0.001

0.201

< 0.001

Pooled specificity (%)

67.3 (103/153)

58.8 (90/153)

60.1 (92/153)

0.048

0.042

0.945

0.081

Pooled PPV (%)

73.3 (137/187)

73.9 (178/241)

74.2 (175/236)

0.822

   

Pooled NPV (%)

59.5 (103/173)

75.6 (90/119)

74.2 (92/124)

0.001

< 0.001

0.567

< 0.001

Pooled AUC

0.853 (0.795–0.911)

0.873 (0.802–0.944)

0.874 (0.810–0.939)

0.026

0.066

1.000

0.047

  1. CECT Contrast-enhanced CT, PET Positron emission tomography, CA 19–9 Carbohydrate antigen 19–9, PPV Positive predictive value, NPV Negative predictive value, AUC Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve
  2. *Adjusted p-values using Bonferroni correction
Back to article page

Cancer Imaging

ISSN: 1470-7330

Contact us