Table 2.

Diagnostic accuracy of normal white light observation, ALA-PDD and combined observation

	White light			ALA-PDD			Combined observation
	Positive	Negative	Total	Positive	Negative	Total	Positive	Negative	Total
A. Analysis by participant (n = 18)
Pathological diagnosis
UC	13	2	15	12	3	15	15	0	15
Non-UC	1	2	3	2	1	3	2	1	3
Total	14	4	18	14	4	18	17	1	18
Accuracy of each observational method	Sensitivity		86.7%	Sensitivity		80.0%	Sensitivity		100.0%
	Specificity		66.7%	Specificity		33.3%	Specificity		33.3%
	PLRa		2.6	PLR		1.2	PLR		1.5
	NLRb		0.2	NLR		0.6	NLR		-
	FPRc		13.3%	FPR		20.0%	FPR		0.0%
	FNRd		33.3%	FNR		66.7%	FNR		66.7%
	PPVe		92.9%	PPV		85.7%	PPV		88.2%
	NPVf		50.0%	NPV		25.0%	NPV		100.0%

	Normal observation			ALA-PDD			Combined observation
	Positive	Negative	Total	Positive	Negative	Total	Positive	Negative	Total
B. Analysis by biopsy specimen (n = 92)
Pathological diagnosis
Urothelial carcinoma	25	15	40	25	15	40	29	11	40
Non-urothelial carcinoma	14	38	52	17	35	52	25	27	52
Total	39	53	92	42	50	92	54	38	92
Accuracy of each observational method	Sensitivity		62.5%	Sensitivity		62.5%	Sensitivity		72.5%
	Specificity		73.1%	Specificity		67.3%	Specificity		51.9%
	PLR		2.3	PLR		1.9	PLR		1.5
	NLR		0.5	NLR		0.4	NLR		0.5
	FPR		37.5%	FPR		37.5%	FPR		27.5%
	FNR		26.9%	FNR		32.7%	FNR		48.1%
	PPV		64.1%	PPV		59.5%	PPV		53.7%
	NPV		71.7%	NPV		70.0%	NPV		71.1%

^aPLR: positive likelihood ratio

^bNLR: negative likelihood ratio

^cFPR: false positive ratio

^dFNR: false negative ratio

^ePPV: positive predictive value

^fNPV: negative predictive value