Table 4.
Detailed analysis of risk scoring system for ≥grade 2 CINV
| Score cut point | Observed prevalencea (%) | Sensitivity (%) | Specificity (%) | Likelihood ratiob |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| <8 | 12.5 | 100 | 0 | 1.0 |
| ≥8 to < 12 | 13.6 | 99.8 | 1.2 | 1.01 |
| ≥12 to < 16 | 23.1 | 97.9 | 10.7 | 1.10 |
| ≥16 to < 20a | 43.7 | 87.4 | 38.4 | 1.42 |
| ≥20 to < 24 | 57.6 | 51.2 | 75.7 | 2.11 |
| ≥24 to < 28 | 72.8 | 18.8 | 94.8 | 3.60 |
| ≥28 | 87.9 | 2.1 | 99.8 | 9.08 |
a
Patients with a risk score of ≥16 to < 20 had a CINV prevalence of ∼43.7% following that cycle of chemotherapy. Therefore in this analysis, we considered a CINV risk score of ≥16 to be ‘high risk’.
b
The ratio of the probability of a positive test result, in the case of CINV, a risk score of 16 units or more among patients who actually developed ≥grade 2 CINV to the probability of a positive test result among patients who did not develop such an event. Therefore, patients who developed ≥grade 2 CINV were 1.4 times more likely than patients who did not develop the event to have a risk score of 16 or more.