Observational Study
Copyright ©The Author(s) 2016.
World J Radiol. Feb 28, 2016; 8(2): 200-209
Published online Feb 28, 2016. doi: 10.4329/wjr.v8.i2.200
Table 2 Patient-based analysis: Performance comparisons between 2-deoxy-2-(18F)fluoro-D-glucose and 18F-sodium positron emission tomography/computed tomography
18F-FDG18F-NaF
Sensitivity (%)75.00 (55.10-88.00)91.67 (74.15-97.68)
Specificity (%)99.00 (84.54-100)76.19 (54.91-89.37)
Positive predictive value (%)99.00 (82.41-100)81.48 (63.3 91.82)
Negative predictive value (%)77.78 (59.24-89.39)88.89 (67.2-96.90)
Error rate (%)13.33 (6.26-26.18)15.56 (7.75-28.78)
Accuracy (%)86.67 (73.82-93.74)84.44 (71.22-92.25)
Youden's index0.75 (0.75-0.74)0.6786 (0.68-0.6718)

  • Citation: Capitanio S, Bongioanni F, Piccardo A, Campus C, Gonella R, Tixi L, Naseri M, Pennone M, Altrinetti V, Buschiazzo A, Bossert I, Fiz F, Bruno A, DeCensi A, Sambuceti G, Morbelli S. Comparisons between glucose analogue 2-deoxy-2-(18F)fluoro-D-glucose and 18F-sodium fluoride positron emission tomography/computed tomography in breast cancer patients with bone lesions. World J Radiol 2016; 8(2): 200-209
  • URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/1949-8470/full/v8/i2/200.htm
  • DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4329/wjr.v8.i2.200