TABLE 8Patient data: direct and indirect comparisons of the sensitivity and specificity of PET compared with CITs

ComparisonPET sensitivity, % (95% CI)CIT sensitivity, % (95% CI)Relative sensitivity (95% CI)PET specificity, % (95% CI)CIT specificity, % (95% CI)Relative specificity (95% CI)
Direct PET vs CIT89 (83 to 93), n = 1079 (72 to 85), n = 101.12 (1.04 to 1.21), p = 0.00593 (83 to 97)83 (67 to 92)1.12 (1.01 to 1.24), p = 0.036
Indirect PET vs CIT91 (87 to 93), n = 2581 (73 to 87), n = 111.12 (1.04 to 1.21), p = 0.00586 (79 to 91)73 (59 to 83)1.18 (1.03 to 1.36), p = 0.017

Reproduced from Pennant et al.17

From: Appendix 2, Model-based assumptions

Cover of An Economic Evaluation of Positron Emission Tomography (PET) and Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography (PET/CT) for the Diagnosis of Breast Cancer Recurrence
An Economic Evaluation of Positron Emission Tomography (PET) and Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography (PET/CT) for the Diagnosis of Breast Cancer Recurrence.
Health Technology Assessment, No. 15.18.
Auguste P, Barton P, Hyde C, et al.
Southampton (UK): NIHR Journals Library; 2011 Apr.
© 2011, Crown Copyright.

Included under terms of UK Non-commercial Government License.

NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.