Table 1.
Patients’ characteristics.
Fig 1.
TMTV0 calculation example and VOI drawing depending on software.
TMTV041 calculation example. VOIs were drawn with Beth Israel plugin (a) and a commercial software (b). The two packages allow different VOIs definition using irregular or predefined shapes (see discussion).
Fig 2.
ROC curves according to software ROC curves using TMTV041 with Beth Israel plugin (red line) and the commercial software (black line).
Fig 3.
TMTV0 distribution according to each methodology.
TMTV0 distribution with median (black lines), 25 to 75 percentile (grey boxes), 10 and 90 percentile (edges) according to each TMTV0 methodology.
Fig 4.
Bland Altman analysis of different TMTV0 methodologies.
Bland-Atman analysis comparing TMTV0 values of TMTV02.5 (a), TMTV0125 (b) and TMTV0140 (c) to TMTV041. Mean bias and limits of agreements are represented by solid lines.
Fig 5.
ROC curves according to methodologies.
ROC curves comparison for each methodology. The respective optimal cut-off and area under curve of TMTV041, TMTV02.5, TMTV0125 and TMTV0140 were respectively 313ml and 0.70, 432ml and 0.68, 450ml and 0.68, 330ml and 0.68.
Fig 6.
PFS survival according to methodologies.
PFS survival analysis according to TMTV02.5 (a), TMTV041 (b), TMTV0125 (c), and TMTV0140 (d).
Table 2.
Multivariate analysis of each TMTV0 methodology to predict PFS.