TABLE 2

Sensitivity and Specificity of 18F-FDOPA PET in Comparison to 123I-MIBG or 18F-FDG PET Imaging

ModalitySensitivitySpecificityAccuracyArea under curve*
All tissue-proven tumors (n = 50, including 42 with viable tumor cells)
 18F-FDOPA PET41/42 (97.6%; 95%CI, 87.4–99.9)7/8 (87.5%; 95%CI, 47.3–99.7)48/50 (96.0%)0.9680 (95%CI, 0.9193–1.0000)†
Tumors with concomitant 123I-MIBG scanning (n = 18, including 16 with viable tumor cells)
 18F-FDOPA PET16/16 (100.0%; 95%CI, 79.4–100.0)1/2 (50.0%; 95%CI, 1.26–98.7)17/18 (94.4%)0.9062 (95%CI, 0.6976–1.0000)
 123I-MIBG scanning12/16 (75.0%; 95%CI, 47.6–92.7)2/2 (100.0%; 95%CI, 15.8–100.0)14/18 (77.8%)Nonapplicable
 P0.04550.3173Nonapplicable
Tumors with concomitant 18F-FDG PET (n = 46, including 38 with viable tumor cells)
 18F-FDOPA PET37/38 (97.4%; 95%CI, 86.2–99.9)7/8 (87.5%; 95%CI, 47.3–99.7)44/46 (95.6%)0.9645 (95%CI, 0.9101–1.000)†
 18F-FDG PET33/38 (86.8%; 95%CI, 71.9–95.6)5/8 (62.5%; 95%CI, 24.5–91.5)38/46 (82.6%)0.8801 (95%CI, 0.7861–0.9740)†
 P0.04550.15730.0682

  • ↵* Calculated from tumor-to-liver SUV ratio in PET studies.

  • ↵† Excluding 1 infant with diffuse hepatic uptake at diagnosis, which precluded calculation of tumor-to-liver uptake ratio.