Metabolic active peritoneal sites affect tumor debulking in ovarian and peritoneal cancers

Table 5 Sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, accuracy, unnecessary surgical exploration rate and inappropriately unexplored rate of different cut-off values used in ROC analysis by the number of ¹⁸F-FDG avid peritoneal sites

No. of ¹⁸F-FDG avid peritoneal sites ^a	True Positive	False Positive	False Negative	True Negative	Sensitivity	Specificity	PPV	NPV	Accuracy	Unnecessary surgical exploration ^b	Inappropriately unexplored ^c
≥ 0	11	38	0	0	100.0%	0.0%	22.4%	–	22.4%	–	77.6%
≥ 1	10	18	1	20	90.9%	52.6%	35.7%	95.2%	61.2%	4.8%	64.3%
≥ 2	6	4	5	34	54.5%	89.5%	60.0%	87.2%	81.6%	12.8%	40.0%
≥ 3	4	1	7	37	36.4%	97.4%	80.0%	84.1%	83.7%	15.9%	20.0%
≥ 4	4	0	7	38	36.4%	100.0%	100.0%	84.4%	85.7%	15.6%	0.0%
≥ 5	1	0	10	38	9.1%	100.0%	100.0%	79.2%	79.6%	20.8%	0.0%
≥ 6	0	0	11	38	0.0%	100.0%	–	77.6%	77.6%	22.4%	–

Remarks:
^aFifteen anatomical sites were scrutinized for the presence of peritoneal carcinomatosis (right subphrenic, right subhepatic, gastric, lesser sac, left subphrenic, left perihepatic, right paracolic, left paracolic, POD, bladder flap, mesentery, omentum, large bowel serosa, small bowel serosa and pelvis regions)
^bUnnecessary surgical exploration (%): the ratio of patients thought to have resectable disease but who will turn out to have incomplete debulking after surgery; correspond to false negative rate (1 - NPV)
^cInappropriately unexplored (%): the ratio of patients thought to have unresectable disease but who will turn out to have complete debulking after surgery; correspond to false positive rate (1 - PPV)

ISSN: 1757-2215