Skip to main content
. 2021 Oct 15;49(4):1298–1310. doi: 10.1007/s00259-021-05572-0

Table 2.

Diagnostic performances of hybrid nomograms, radiomic signatures and IPI score

End points Models Training cohort Validation cohort
AUC (95% CI) Sens
(%)
Spec
(%)
PPV
(%)
NPV
(%)
DeLong
test P *
HL test
P
AUC (95% CI) Sens
(%)
Spec
(%)
PPV
(%)
NPV
(%)
DeLong
test P *
HL test
P
PFS Hybrid nomogram
  TMTV-HNPFS 0.828 (0.721–0.916) 80.0 73.3 50.0 91.7  < 0.001 0.389 0.781 (0.647–0.905) 75.0 75.0 57.1 87.1 0.041 0.110
  MBV-HNPFS 0.835 (0.729–0.922) 80.0 74.7 51.3 91.8  < 0.001 0.276 0.787 (0.651–0.907) 75.0 77.8 60.0 87.5 0.017 0.431
Radiomic signature
  TMTV-RSPFS 0.819 (0.724–0.909) 84.0 66.7 45.7 92.6 0.104 0.231 0.748 (0.596–0.886) 81.3 66.7 52.0 88.9 0.285 0.398
  MBV-RSPFS 0.806 (0.704–0.898) 84.0 62.7 42.9 92.2 0.455 0.620 0.759 (0.595–0.888) 68.8 80.5 61.1 85.3 0.209 0.548
IPI score 0.701 (0.592–0.796) 76.0 64.0 41.3 88.9 NA NA 0.663 (0.512–0.798) 68.8 63.9 45.8 82.1 NA NA
OS Hybrid nomogram
  TMTV-HNOS 0.818 (0.699–0.912) 80.0 66.3 37.2 93.0 0.005 0.492 0.785 (0.632–0.925) 78.6 71.1 50.0 90.0 0.038 0.188
  MBV-HNOS 0.831 (0.723–0.916) 80.0 72.5 42.1 93.5  < 0.001 0.549 0.792 (0.621–0.936) 78.6 76.3 55.0 90.6 0.013 0.259
Radiomic signature
  TMTV-RSOS 0.803 (0.681–0.898) 85.0 62.5 36.2 94.3 0.563 0.403 0.742 (0.554–0.917) 71.4 73.7 50.0 87.5 0.268 0.219
  MBV-RSOS 0.815 (0.719–0.904) 90.0 66.3 40.0 96.4 0.096 0.336 0.757 (0.586–0.906) 78.6 68.4 47.8 89.7 0.192 0.567
IPI score 0.713 (0.606–0.807) 80.0 62.5 34.8 92.6 NA NA 0.652 (0.483–0.795) 64.3 65.8 40.9 83.3 NA NA

AUC area under the curve, CI confidence interval, Sens sensitivity, Spec specificity, PPV positive predictive value, NPV negative predictive value, HL Hosmer–Lemeshow, PFS progression-free survival, TMTV total metabolic tumor volume, HN hybrid nomogram, MBV metabolic bulk volume, RS radiomic signature, IPI International Prognostic Index, NA not applicable, OS overall survival

*P value was calculated by comparing AUC with that of the IPI score