Skip to main content
. 2016 Jan 28;155:463–469. doi: 10.1007/s10549-016-3690-6

Table 2.

Tumor heterogeneity analysis of central pathology versus mRNA

Concordance (95 % CI) Kappa (95 % CI) Positive agreement Negative agreement PPV NPV Sample size
ER Hole 97.0 % (96.1–97.9) 0.864 (0.825–0.904) 97.4 (1217/1250) 94.1 (160/170) 99.2 (1217/1227) 82.9 (160/193) 1420
ER No hole 97.5 % (97.0–97.9) 0.880 (0.858–0.903) 97.7 (3673/3761) 95.8 (459/479) 99.5 (3673/3693) 83.9 (459/547) 4240
PgR Hole 87.8 % (86.0–89.4) 0.666 (0.621–0.710) 86.5 (996/1151) 92.9 (250/269) 98.1 (996/1015) 61.7 (250/405) 1420
PgR No hole 86.8 % (85.7–87.8) 0.647 (0.621–0.673) 85.1 (2919/3432) 94.0 (754/802) 98.4 (2919/2967) 59.5 (754/1267) 4234
HER-2 Hole 95.8 % (94.8–96.9) 0.764 (0.706–0.822) 73.6 (109/148) 98.4 (1245/1265) 84.5 (109/129) 97.0 (1245/1284) 1413
HER-2 No hole 96.2 % (95.6–96.8) 0.756 (0.720–0.792) 71.8 (280/390) 98.7 (3775/3826) 84.6 (280/331) 97.2 (3775/3885) 4216

Agreement statistics for central pathology assessments versus TargetPrint, for central samples with a biopsy hole and thus assumed to have no tumor heterogeneity in the sample sent for mRNA analysis, and samples without such a hole and thus assumed to be heterogeneous from the mRNA sample