Accuracy of computed tomography in nodal staging of colon cancer patients

Table 1 Patient demographic and final pathologic characteristics

Characteristics	n = 64 (%)
Age (yr)1	67.6 ± 12.8
Sex
Male	26 (40.6)
Female	38 (59.4)
Tumor location
Cecum	14 (21.9)
Ascending colon	16 (25.0)
Transverse colon	6 (9.4)
Splenic flexure	1 (1.6)
Descending colon	6 (9.4)
Sigmoid colon	18 (28.1)
Rectosigmoid	3 (4.7)
Pathologic stage
Stage I	19 (29.7)
Stage II	19 (29.7)
Stage III	26 (40.6)
N stage
N0	38 (59.4)
N1	17 (26.5)
N2	9 (14.1)

¹Mean ± SD.

Table 2 Comparison of lymph node status prediction by computed tomography against final pathologic examination for three observers

	Final pathology (n = 64)
	LN+ (n = 26)	LN- (n = 38)
Original radiologist
LN+	14	13
LN-	12	25
Secondary radiologist
LN+	23	16
LN-	3	22
Surgeon
LN+	18	13
LN-	8	25

LN+: Lymph node positive; LN-: Lymph node negative.

Table 3 Statistical analysis of lymph node status prediction by computed tomography against final pathologic examination for three observers (n = 64)

	Sensitivity(95%CI, P-value)	Specificity(95%CI, P-value)	PPV(95%CI, P-value)	NPV(95%CI, P-value)	FPR(95%CI, P-value)	FNR(95%CI, P-value)	Accuracy(95%CI, P-value)
Original radiologist	54% (35%-73%, P = 0.69)	66% (51%-81%, P = 0.05)	52% (33%-71%, P = 0.85)	68% (52%-83%, P = 0.03)	34% (19%-49%, P = 0.05)	46% (27%-65%, P = 0.69)	61% (49%-73%, P = 0.08)
Secondary radiologist	88% (76%-100%, P < 0.01)	58% (42%-74%, P = 0.33)	59% (44%-74%, P = 0.26)	88% (75%-100%, P < 0.01)	42% (26%-58%, P = 0.33)	12% (0%-24%, P < 0.01)	70% (59%-82%, P < 0.01)
Surgeon	69% (51%-87%, P = 0.05)	66% (51%-81%, P = 0.05)	58% (41%-75%, P = 0.37)	76% (61%-90%, P < 0.01)	34% (19%-49%, P = 0.05)	31% (13%-49%, P = 0.05)	67% (56%-79%, P = 0.01)

P-value indicates significance of the observer’s statistic compared null hypothesis of 0.5. PPV: Positive predictive value; NPV: Negative predictive value; FPR: False positive rate; FNR: False negative rate.