Table 3.
Alternative scoring systems and their performance with FIGO 2000 compared
| Model | AUCa | True- positiveb | True- negativeb | False- positiveb | False- negativeb | Sensitivity | Specitivity | Identical classification |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Original FIGO 2000 | 1.000 | 694 | 73 | 0 | 0 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 100% |
| Model 1 | ||||||||
| Age | ||||||||
| Antecedent pregnancy | ||||||||
| Pretreatment serum hCG | ||||||||
| Tumor size | ||||||||
| Number of metastases | 0.999 | 693 | 70 | 21,2c | 45,6,7,8c | 0.99 | 0.97 | 99.1% |
| Model 2 | ||||||||
| Age | ||||||||
| Antecedent pregnancy | ||||||||
| Pretreatment serum hCG | ||||||||
| Number of metastases | 0.998 | 720 | 71 | 41,2,3,4c | 35,7,8c | 1.00 | 0.95 | 99.2% |
| Model 3 | ||||||||
| Age | ||||||||
| Antecedent pregnancy | ||||||||
| Interval | ||||||||
| Pretreatment serum hCG | ||||||||
| Number of metastases | 1.000 | 722 | 73 | 14b | 0 | 1.00 | 0.99 | 99.9% |
a
Risk classification according to the FIGO 2000 was considered ‘gold standard’.
b
For every alternative scoring system the number of discordant patients and corresponding case numbers are highlighted.
c
Allowing for the fact that the FIGO 2000 was already used in this particular data, the AUC, sensitivity and specificity for the original FIGO 2000 were consequently calculated at 1.0.