Table 2.
Comparison of Proseek® values obtained from women with late stage ovarian cancer versus healthy women
| Protein | Late versus healthy | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| AUC (95% CI) | Rank | Sensitivity at 95% specificity (95% CI) | Rank | |
| CA.125 | 1 (1, 1) | 1 | 1 (1, 1) | 1 |
| HE4 | 1 (0.99, 1) | 2 | 0.99 (0.94, 1) | 2 |
| MK | 0.98 (0.94, 1) | 3 | 0.91 (0.79, 0.99) | 3 |
| KLK6 | 0.95 (0.9, 0.99) | 4 | 0.88 (0.8, 0.96) | 4 |
| hK11 | 0.93 (0.88, 0.98) | 5 | 0.79 (0.63, 0.93) | 6 |
| FR.alpha | 0.92 (0.83, 0.98) | 6 | 0.81 (0.67, 0.94) | 5 |
| CXCL13 | 0.92 (0.85, 0.97) | 7 | 0.66 (0.43, 0.87) | 7 |
| IL.6 | 0.89 (0.8, 0.97) | 8 | 0.59 (0.26, 0.85) | 10 |
| PDGF.subunit.B | 0.87 (0.77, 0.95) | 9 | 0.42 (0.2, 0.76) | 19 |
| U.PAR | 0.86 (0.75, 0.95) | 10 | 0.39 (0.12, 0.77) | 23 |
| FADD | 0.84 (0.74, 0.93) | 11 | 0.59 (0.36, 0.81) | 9 |
| TNFSF14 | 0.84 (0.72, 0.94) | 12 | 0.38 (0.17, 0.71) | 29 |
| IL.7 | 0.84 (0.72, 0.93) | 13 | 0.46 (0.25, 0.7) | 16 |
| CSF.1 | 0.84 (0.7, 0.95) | 14 | 0.28 (0.04, 0.74) | 39 |
| CD40.L | 0.83 (0.72, 0.95) | 15 | 0.22 (0.02, 0.82) | 53 |
| TGF.alpha | 0.83 (0.71, 0.93) | 16 | 0.38 (0.14, 0.72) | 30 |
| PRSS8 | 0.83 (0.71, 0.93) | 17 | 0.49 (0.3, 0.74) | 15 |
| MMP.1 | 0.82 (0.69, 0.92) | 18 | 0.26 (0.08, 0.58) | 47 |
| FUR | 0.82 (0.7, 0.92) | 19 | 0.28 (0.09, 0.62) | 40 |
| TNF.R1 | 0.82 (0.69, 0.93) | 20 | 0.44 (0.22, 0.72) | 18 |
| ILT.3 | 0.81 (0.67, 0.92) | 21 | 0.39 (0.15, 0.68) | 28 |
| SCF | 0.81 (0.72, 0.89) | 22 | 0.64 (0.46, 0.8) | 8 |
| NTRK3 | 0.8 (0.67, 0.9) | 23 | 0.53 (0.25, 0.76) | 11 |
| HGF | 0.8 (0.66, 0.92) | 24 | 0.38 (0.14, 0.67) | 32 |
| HB.EGF | 0.8 (0.65, 0.93) | 25 | 0.27 (0.06, 0.65) | 42 |
The 25 proteins with the highest AUC values were ranked, as well as their sensitivity at 95% specificity. ROC curves for discriminating late stage high grade serous ovarian cancer versus healthy women for the 12 proteins with the highest AUC values are shown in Fig. 5. Data for all 92 proteins is provided in Additional file 2