Skip to main content
EJNMMI Research

Table 3 Discordant cases relative to the reference algorithm (ASP)

From: Asphericity of tumor FDG uptake in non-small cell lung cancer: reproducibility and implications for harmonization in multicenter studies

 

Discordant proportion, % (95% CI)

5 mm versus 7 mm

7 mm versus 7 mm

9 mm versus 7 mm

5 mm versus 5 mm

9 mm versus 9 mm

Strictly 19.5%

 TOF4/8

38 (23.5–52.5)

2 (0–6.9)

16 (4.8–27.2)

6 (0–13.6)

2 (0–6.9)

 TOF4/16

44 (29.2–58.8)

–

14 (3.4–24.6)

–

–

 PSF + TOF2/17

12 (2.0–22.0)

4 (0–10.4)

12 (2.0–22.0)

32 (18.1–45.9)

6 (0–13.6)

 Q.Clear

10 (0.7–19.3)

10 (0.7–19.3)

26 (12.8–39.2)

38 (23.5–52.5)

12 (2.0–22.0)

5% tolerance

 TOF4/8

36 (21.7–50.3)

0 (0–1.0)

12 (2.0–22.0)

4 (0–10.4)

0 (0–1.0)

 TOF4/16

36 (21.7–50.3)

–

10 (0.7–19.3)

–

–

 PSF + TOF2/17

10 (0.7–19.3)

0 (0–1.0)

8 (0–16.5)

30 (16.3–43.7)

0 (0–1.0)

 Q.Clear

10 (0.7–19.3)

6 (0–13.6)

22 (9.5–34.5)

36 (21.7–50.3)

10 (0.7–19.3)

  1. Proportions of discordantly classified cases among all 50 patients are given in % (95%-confidence interval; 95% CI) for each algorithm relative to the reference algorithm TOF4/16. Different pairs of reconstructed spatial resolution (FWHM) are compared. Missing values reflect pairs of identical datasets. Proportions are provided either for a strict ASP cutoff (high, > 19.5%; low, ≤ 19.5%) or with 5% tolerance (i.e., ASP was also rated concordant if between 18.53% and 20.48%)
Back to article page