Table 3. Predictive values of different PK parameters with respect to renal toxicities.
| AUC of ROC curve | Threshold | Sensitivity | Specificity | Positive predictive value | Negative predictive value | OR (95% CI) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| IPCL | 0.909 | 4.1 | 0.929 | 0.825 | 0.650 | 0.971 | 61.3 (9.5–395.0) |
| CL | 0.514 | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | |
| AUCIP | 0.855 | 19.6 | 0.714 | 0.800 | 0.556 | 0.889 | 10.0 (2.6–38.1) |
| AUCserum | 0.854 | 4.5 | 0.857 | 0.725 | 0.522 | 0.935 | 15.8 (3.5–72.3) |
| IPCLBayes | 0.923 | 4.5 | 0.786 | 0.872 | 0.688 | 0.919 | 24.9 (5.6–111.4) |
| IPCLcalc | 0.892 | 3.2 | 0.857 | 0.821 | 0.632 | 0.941 | 27.4 (5.7–132.2) |
Abbreviations: AUCIP=area under the concentration curve observed in the peritoneal compartment; AUCSERUM=area under the concentration curve observed in the central compartment; CI=confidence interval; CL=clearance from the serum (central) compartment; IP=intraperitoneal; IPCL=IP clearance; IPCLBayes=IPCL estimated with two IP samples obtained at the end of each bath and assessed with a Bayesian estimation, IPCLcalc=IPCL estimated with two IP samples obtained at the end of each bath and assessed with the formula described in the paper; NA=not applicable; OR=odds ratio. The thresholds were determined after receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curve assessment and their units are l h–1 for IPCL and mg h l–1 for both AUCs. Predictive values of CL were not evaluated because of too bad ROC evaluation.