Table 3 Local residual tumor based on MRI (radiologist), PET (nuclear physician), and PET-MRI (consensus radiologist and nuclear physician) scores and change of opinion and policy
Patient | MRI local | PET local | MRI-PET local | Change of opinion (reason) | Policy of change |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | TN | TN | TN | − | − |
2 | TN | TN | TN | − | − |
3 | TN | Equivocal | TN | + PET artifact | + Follow-up |
4 | FP | FP | Equivocal | + No PET uptake at suspicious MRI lesion | + Additional imaging |
5 | FN | TP | FN | + FDG uptake artifact at PET-MR | − Metastasis |
6 | TP | TP | TP | − | − |
7 | FP | TN | Equivocal | + Consensus + MRI, non-suspicious PET | + Additional imaging |
8 | Equivocal | TN | FP | + Consensus PET-MR, PET hard to interpret due to low-FDG glucose uptake | + Salvage surgery |
9 | Equivocal | TP | TP | + MR partial volume, clear FDG uptake | + Salvage surgery |
10 | TN | FP | TN | + PET hotspot outside cervical tissue | − Metastasis |