Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2011 Jan 1.
Published in final edited form as: Clin Cancer Res. 2009 Dec 22;16(1):195–202. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-09-0948

Table 2.

A. Summary of four prediction models (n = 54)

Median (range) Kattan nomogram

GEMCaP score

Fixed Floating Integrated
Controls 14% (0%-50%) 21% (0%-74%) 16% (3%-66%) 93% (40%-99%)
Cases 18% (3%-46%) 29% (0%-77%) 23% (3%-64%) 53% (3%-96%)
B. Agreement in classification between GEMCaP and the nomogram

Agreement in classification*

%Favorable % Unfavorable % Total

Nomogram and:
 Fixed threshold 52% 9% 61%
 Floating threshold 28% 17% 45%
 Integrated threshold 37% 13% 50%
 All three GEMCaP models 26% 9% 35%
*

Favorable is defined as a GEMCaP score of <20% and as a nomogram probability of ≥40%.