Utility of PET/CT in diagnosis, staging, assessment of resectability and metabolic response of pancreatic cancer

Table 2 Position emission tomography/computed tomography in differential diagnosis of pancreatic carcinoma and mass-forming pancreatitis

Ref.1	Study design	PC/CP	SUV(max) of PC	SUV(max) of CP	Cutoff value	SE	SP	PPV	NPV	LR(+)	LR(-)	Accuracy
			(mean ± SD)	(mean ± SD)
Stollfuss et al[25]	R	43/30	3.16 ± 1.22	1.00 ± 0.55	1.53	93.18%	93.10%	95.35%	90.00%	13.51	0.07	93.15%
Mertz et al[21]	R	31/4	-	-	2.80	87.09%	50.00%	93.33%	33.33%	1.74	0.25	82.86%
van Kouwen et al[19]	R	32/77	-	-	-2	90.62%	87.01%	74.35%	95.71%	6.97	0.11	88.07%
Lytras et al[18]	R	54/25	-	-	-3	78.00%	55.00%	78.00%	55.00%	-	-	64.00%

¹Fluorodeoxyglucose-position emission tomography (FDG-PET) scan without computed tomography (CT);

²Results were judged to be abnormal if focal accumulation of the tracer was detected in the area of the pancreas. Faint and/or diffuse FDG uptake in the pancreatic region (i.e., uptake slightly higher than the surrounding background, but clearly lower than the liver) was not considered suspicious for pancreatic cancer;

³Lesions measured visually. SE: Sensitivity; SP: Specificity; NPV: Negative predictive value; PPV: Positive predictive value; R: Retrospective study; P: Prospective study.