Skip to main content

Table 4 Comparison of different xSPECT quantification as well as blinded reading in patients with suspected prosthetic loosening

From: Accuracy comparison of various quantitative [99mTc]Tc-DPD SPECT/CT reconstruction techniques in patients with symptomatic hip and knee joint prostheses

xSPECT Quant xSPECT Bone xSPECT Quant iMAR xSPECT Bone iMAR xSPECT Quant Blinded reading Test for superiority*
Trainee Senior
Cut-off SUVmax (ROC analysis) 9.40 13.87 9.61 14.78    
Accuracy 77.4 (62.4–92.4) 84.8 (70.6–99.1) 81.8 (67.5–96.1) 93.9 (79.6–100) 81.8 (67.5–96.1) 84.8 (70.6–99.1) P = 0.02
Sensitivity 90.0 (63.6–100) 90.0 (64.0–100) 90.0 (64.0–100) 80.0 (54.0–100) 60.0 (34.0–86.0) 70.0 (44.0–96.0) P = 1.0
Specificity 71.4 (53.2–89.6) 82.6 (65.5–99.7) 78.3 (61.1–95.4) 100.0 (82.9–100) 91.3 (74.2–100) 91.3 (74.2–100) P = 0.04
Positive predictive value 60.0 (38.4–81.6) 69.2 (48.0–90.4) 64.3 (43.1–85.5) 100.0 (74.0–100) 75.0 (49.0–100) 77.8 (51.8–100) P = 0.02
Negative predictive value 93.8 (72.2–100) 95.0 (77.9–100) 94.7 (77.6–100) 92.0 (74.9–100) 84.0 (66.9–100) 87.5 (70.4–100) P = 1.0
  1. Diagnostic performance of quantitative uptake measures is given in percentage based on quantitative ROC analysis with respective cut-off SUVmax values or blinded reading by one trainee and one senior reader with 95% confidence intervals in brackets. Standard for comparison was surgery or clinical follow-up and follow-up imaging of at least 1 year
  2. *P values for comparison of xSPECT Quant without iMAR versus xSPECT Bone with iMAR. There was a significant difference in the accuracy, specificity and positive predictive value between xSPECT Bone with iMAR and xSPECT Quant without iMAR (P = 0.04 and P = 0.02, respectively). All other not shown P values were not significantly different
  3. Bold numbers indicate signiicant differences (level of significance P < 0.05)