Table 2.
The comparison of performance between the conventional clinical method and OncoSeek.
| Conventional clinical method |
OncoSeek |
|||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cancer | Non-cancer | Cancer | Non-cancer | |
| Predict cancer | 1249a | 3200a | 1012 | 527 |
| Predict non-cancer | 710 | 4223 | 947 | 6896 |
| Sensitivity (95% CI) | 63.8% (61.6%, 65.9%) | 51.7% (49.4%, 53.9%) | ||
| Specificity (95% CI) | 56.9% (55.8%, 58.0%) | 92.9% (92.3%, 93.5%) | ||
| PPV (95% CI) | 28.1% (26.8%, 29.4%) | 65.8% (63.3%, 68.1%) | ||
| NPV (95% CI) | 85.6% (84.6%, 86.6%) | 87.9% (87.2%, 88.6%) | ||
PPV, Positive predictive value. NPV, Negative predictive value.
a
Individuals with at least one of the markers included in the panel showing values above the cut-off point were considered as being positive.