Table 5.
Sensitivity and specificity values for three different cutoff points of percentage difference of MNf.
| Limit | Outcome | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Prog. (NT = 15) | S.D./P.R./C.R. (NT = 61) | Prog./S.D. (NT = 38) | P.R./C.R. (NT = 38) | |||||
| N | % | N | % | N | % | N | % | |
| ≤33% | 9 | 25.0% | 27 | 75.0% | 20 | 55.6% | 16 | 44.4% |
| >33% | 6 | 15.0% | 34 | 85.0% | 18 | 45.0% | 22 | 55.0% |
| ≤31% | 9 | 31.0% | 20 | 69.0% | 19 | 65.5% | 10 | 34.5% |
| >31% | 6 | 12.8% | 41 | 87.2% | 19 | 40.4% | 28 | 59.6% |
| ≤29% | 8 | 36.4% | 14 | 63.6% | 16 | 72.7% | 6 | 27.3% |
| >29% | 7 | 13.0% | 47 | 87.0% | 22 | 40.7% | 32 | 59.3% |
It can be seen that when the outcome is progressive disease vs stable/ partial/complete response, the best set of sensitivity–specificity is found at 29% difference between middle and initial MNf measurements (sensitivity 36.4% and specificity 87.0%). The highest specificity (87.2%) was found for 31% reduction of MNf. When the outcome was set between stable/progressive disease vs partial/complete response, the best set of sensitivity and specificity variables was found for 29% difference (sensitivity 72.7% and specificity 59.3%). NT, total number of patients; Prog., progression; S.D., stable disease; P.R., partial response; C.R., complete response.