Skip to main content

Table 2 Comparison of the patient-level true positive rate (TPR(·,τ1,τ2)) when the threshold for each screening algorithm was chosen such that the screening-level false positive rate is 10%, i.e FPR(·,τ1)=0.1. In each definition, the choice of the parameters τ1 and τ2 varies

From: Evaluating screening approaches for hepatocellular carcinoma in a cohort of HCV related cirrhosis patients from the Veteran’s Affairs Health Care System

 

Results from validation cohort

Screening algorithm

A1

B1

C1

D1

A2

B2

C2

D2

AFP only

0.5753

0.5672

0.5442

0.5388

0.4019

0.4099

0.3564

0.3361

AFP+Lab+ ΔAFP

0.6137

0.6119

0.5907

0.5809

0.4766

0.4820

0.4158

0.3770

PEB: AFP

0.6055

0.6045

0.6023

0.6364

0.4579

0.4955

0.4653

0.4891

Number of HCC cases

365

402

430

451

107

222

303

366

  1. A1: τ1=6 months and τ2=0, B1: τ1=12 months and τ2=0, C1: τ1=24 months and τ2=0, D1: τ1 is the maximum follow-up time and τ2=0. A2: τ1=6 months and τ2=3 months, B2: τ1=12 months and τ2=3 months, C2: τ1=24 months and τ2=3 months, D2: τ1 is the maximum follow-up time and τ2=3 months. AFP+Lab+ ΔAFP: updated laboratory-based algorithm, PEB: AFP: parametric empirical Bayes algorithm applied to AFP