Retrospective Study
Copyright ©The Author(s) 2017.
World J Gastroenterol. Sep 21, 2017; 23(35): 6448-6456
Published online Sep 21, 2017. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v23.i35.6448
Table 3 Comparison of contrast-enhanced computed tomography and positron emission tomography/computed tomography in the detection of recurrence
SiteImagingSensitivity (%)Specificity (%)Positive predictive value (%)Negative predictive value (%)Accuracy (%)P value
OverallCT97 (58/60)97 (58/60)97 (58/60)97 (58/60)97 (114/120)0.096
PET/CT82 (49/60)95 (57/60)94 (49/52)84 (57/68)88 (106/120)
LocoregionalCT80 (8/10)100 (110/110)100 (8/8)98 (112/110)98 (118/120)1.000
PET/CT80 (8/10)99 (109/110)89 (8/9)98 (109/111)98 (117/120)
Lymph nodeCT92 (22/24)99 (95/96)96 (22/23)98 (95/97)98 (117/120)1.000
PET/CT88 (21/24)99 (95/96)95 (21/22)97 (95/98)97 (116/120)
LiverCT67 (2/3)96 (112/117)29 (2/7)99 (112/113)95 (114/120)0.688
PET/CT100 (3/3)98 (115/117)60 (3/5)100 (115/115)98 (118/120)
Peritoneal carcinomatosisCT96 (23/24)100 (96/96)100 (23/23)99 (96/97)99 (119/120)0.001
PET/CT50 (12/24)100 (96/96)100 (12/12)89 (96/108)90 (108/120)
Total lesionCT86 (68/79)98 (511/521)87 (68/78)98 (511/522)97 (579/600)0.089
PET/CT76 (60/79)98 (513/521)88 (60/68)96 (513/532)96 (573/600)