Skip to main content

Advertisement

Table 3 Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves results obtained for selected biomarkers and logistic regression models

From: CD44, TGM2 and EpCAM as novel plasma markers in endometrial cancer diagnosis

Model Sensitivity (%) Specificity (%) ROC AUC 95% CI PPV NPV Difference in AUC p-value
EC vs. non-EC
 8-marker 93 83 0.945 0.86–0.99
 5-marker 84 83 0.895 0.79–0.96 0.05 0.11
EC vs. control*
 CD44/EpCAM/TGM2 84 100 0.937 0.84–0.96 100 99.9
 CD44/EpCAM 82 75 0.842 0.73–0.92 0.85 99.9 0.09 0.067
 CD44/TGM2 81 100 0.911 0.8–0.97 100 99.9 0.03 0.209
 EpCAM/TGM2 84 94 0.909 0.79–0.97 3.52 99.9 0.02 0.212
 CD44 49 100 0.834 0.71–0.92 100 99.8 0.11 0.027
 EpCAM 42 95 0.667 0.54–0.78 2.14 99.8 0.3 < 0.001
 TGM2 78 100 0.901 0.79–0.97 100 99.9 0.04 0.206
FIGO1A vs. control
 CD44/TGM2 69 94 0.847 0.68–0.95 2.9 99.9
FIGO1A vs. FIGO1B-4
 Mesothelin/G1 95 78 0.911 0.79–0.98
Endometriosis vs. control
 CD44/TGM2 91 100 0.98 0.85–1.00 100 99.1
EC vs. endometriosis
 ALDH1A1/Midkine 100 73 0.897 0.76–0.97
  1. *prevalence of EC (0.26%) used for calculation of PPV and NPV was based on data from https://gis.cdc.gov/Cancer/USCS/DataViz.html
  2. 8-marker model: ALDH1A1, CA9, CD44, Hepsin, Kallikrein 6, L1CAM, Midkine, TGM2
  3. 5-marker model: ALDH1A1, CD44, EpCAM, Midkine, TGM2