Table 3. Lipid candidates capable of distinguishing EGFR mutation status in the PE of NSCLC patients and their diagnostic performance.
| Non-EGFR vs EGFR mutants | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lipid namea | Ratio (relative to non-EGFR) | AUCb | SN (%) | SP (%) | ACC (%) |
| Polyunsaturated fatty acids | |||||
| FA(20:3) [Eicosatrienoic acid] | 1.67 | 0.68 (0.50–0.87) | 68.42 | 70.59 | 69.44 |
| FA(20:5) [Eicosapentaenoic acid] | 2.43 | 0.68 (0.50–0.87) | 89.47 | 58.82 | 75.00 |
| FA(22:5) [Docosapentaenoic acid] | 2.49 | 0.78 (0.62–0.94) | 73.68 | 70.59 | 72.22 |
| FA(22:6) [Docosahexaenoic acid] | 1.68 | 0.75 (0.58–0.93) | 89.47 | 64.71 | 77.78 |
| Phospholipids | |||||
| LysoPEtn(P-16:0) | 1.57 | 0.70 (0.52–0.88) | 73.68 | 70.59 | 72.22 |
| PC(41:6) | 2.60 | 0.70 (0.51–0.88) | 63.16 | 82.35 | 72.22 |
| PEtn(P-36:5) | 2.30 | 0.67 (0.48–0.85) | 63.16 | 70.59 | 66.67 |
aIndividual abbreviated lipid names are provided based on the following convention: Lipid class (total number of carbons: total number of double bonds).
bAUC value obtained based on receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis with 95% confidence interval range provided in parentheses.
VIP, variable importance for projection value; AUC, area under curve for ROC analysis; SN, sensitivity; SP, specificity; ACC, accuracy; FA, fatty acid; LysoPEtn(P-), ether-linked lysophosphatidylethanolamine; PC, phosphatidylcholine; PEtn(P-), ether-linked phosphatidylethanolamine.
Listed markers satisfy statistical threshold (ratio > 1.5, p-value < 0.05, VIP > 1) in both pair-wise comparisons of EGFR mutant cases with benign PE and non-EGFR mutant cases.