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 | – | – | – | – |