Subjective assessment versus ultrasound models to diagnose ovarian cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Comparison of ultrasound-based ADNEX model with magnetic resonance imaging for discriminating adnexal masses: a multi-center study

Objectives

The ADNEX model offered a good diagnostic performance for discriminating adnexal tumors, but research comparing the abilities of the ADNEX model and MRI for characterizing adnexal tumors has not been reported to our knowledge. The aim of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of the ultrasound-based ADNEX (Assessment of Different NEoplasias in the adneXa) model in comparison with that of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for differentiating benign, borderline and malignant adnexal masses.

Methods

This prospective study included 529 women with adnexal masses who underwent assessment via the ADNEX model and subjective MRI analysis before surgical treatment between October 2019 and April 2022 at two hospitals. Postoperative histological diagnosis was considered the gold standard.

Results

Among the 529 women, 92 (17.4%) masses were diagnosed histologically as malignant tumors, 67 (12.7%) as borderline tumors, and 370 (69.9%) as benign tumors. For the diagnosis of malignancy, including borderline tumors, overall agreement between the ADNEX model and MRI pre-operation was 84.9%. The sensitivity of the ADNEX model of 0.91 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.85-0.95) was similar to that of MRI (0.89, 95% CI: 0.84-0.94; P=0.717). However, the ADNEX model had a higher specificity (0.90, 95% CI: 0.87-0.93) than MRI (0.81, 95% CI: 0.77-0.85; P=0.001). The greatest sensitivity (0.96, 95% CI: 0.92-0.99) and specificity (0.94, 95% CI: 0.91-0.96) were achieved by combining the ADNEX model and subjective MRI assessment. While the total diagnostic accuracy did not differ significantly between the two methods (P=0.059), the ADNEX model showed greater diagnostic accuracy for borderline tumors (P<0.001).

Conclusion

The ultrasound-based ADNEX model demonstrated excellent diagnostic performance for adnexal tumors, especially borderline tumors, compared with MRI. Accordingly, we recommend that the ADNEX model, alone or with subjective MRI assessment, should be used for pre-operative assessment of adnexal masses.

Fat-containing adnexal masses on MRI: solid tissue volume and fat distribution as a guide for O-RADS Score assignment

PURPOSE

To explore ways to improve O-RADS MRI scoring for fat-containing adnexal masses, by investigating methods for quantifying solid tissue volume and fat distribution and evaluating their associations with malignancy.

METHODS

This retrospective, single-center study included patients with fat-containing adnexal masses on MRI during 2008-2021. Two radiologists independently reviewed overall size (Sizeoverall), size of any solid tissue (Sizeanysolid), size of solid tissue that was not Rokitansky nodule (Sizenon-Rokitansky), and fat distribution. Wilcoxon test, Fisher-exact test, and ROC curve analysis were performed. Reference standard was pathology or follow-up > 24 months.

RESULTS

188 women (median age 35 years) with 163 benign and 25 malignant lesions were included. Sizeoverall (R1, 9.9 cm vs 5.9 cm; R2, 12.4 cm vs 6.0 cm), Sizeanysolid (R1, 5.1 cm vs 1.2 cm; R2, 3.2 cm vs 0.0 cm), Sizenon-Rokitansky (R1, 5.1 cm vs 0.0 cm; R2, 3.1 cm vs 0.0 cm), and fat distribution differed significantly between malignant and benign lesions (p < 0.01). Area under ROC curve was greatest using Sizenon-Rokitansky (R1, 0.83; R2, 0.86) vs Sizeoverall (R1, 0.78; R2, 0.81) or Sizeanysolid (R1, 0.79; R2, 0.81), though differences were non-significant (p = 0.48-0.93). Cutoffs for Sizenon-Rokitansky (R1, ≥ 1.2 cm; R2, ≥ 1.0 cm) yielded sensitivity and specificity of 0.72 and 0.93 (R1) and 0.76 and 0.95 (R2). Among immature teratomas, 85.7% displayed scattered fat.

CONCLUSION

Overall size, size of (any or non-Rokitansky-nodule) solid tissue, and fat distribution differed between benign and malignant fat-containing adnexal masses. Incorporating these would constitute simple and practical approaches to refining O-RADS MRI scoring.

A simplified approach to ovarian lesions based on the O-RADS US risk stratification and management system

Compared to the risk-oriented approach to ovarian lesions that is presented in the Ovarian- Adnexal Reporting and Data System (O-RADS) US Risk Stratification and Management System as a guideline, a lesion-oriented flowchart is more user-friendly for radiologists. In the present article, the O-RADS guideline has been depicted in the form of a single flowchart to explain how to approach ovarian lesions in an algorithmic manner. In addition to providing a practical flowchart, this pictorial article contains some images of the related ovarian lesions.

Evaluation of IOTA-ADNEX Model and Simple Rules for Identifying Adnexal Masses by Operators with Varying Levels of Expertise: A Single-Center Diagnostic Accuracy Study

Objectives The discrimination of ovarian lesions presents a significant problem in everyday clinical practice with ultrasonography appearing to be the most effective diagnostic technique. The aim of our study was to externally evaluate the performance of different diagnostic models when applied by examiners with various levels of experience. Methods This was a diagnostic accuracy study including women who were admitted for adnexal masses, between July 2018 and April 2021, to a Greek tertiary oncology center. Preoperatively sonographic data were evaluated by an expert gynecologist, a 6 th and a 1 st year gynecology resident, who applied the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis (IOTA) Simple Rules (SR) and Assessment of Different NEoplasias in the adneXa (ADNEX) model to discriminate between benign and malignant ovarian tumors. The explant pathology report was used as the reference diagnosis. Kappa statistics were used for the investigation of the level of agreement between the examined systems and the raters. Results We included 66 women, 39 with benign and 27 with malignant ovarian tumors. ADNEX (with and without "CA-125") had high sensitivity (96-100%) when applied by all raters but a rather low specificity (36%) when applied by the 1st year resident. SR could not be applied in 6% to 17% of the cases. It had slightly lower sensitivity, higher specificity, and higher overall accuracy, especially when applied by the 1st year resident (61% vs. 92%), compared to ADNEX. Conclusion Both ADNEX and SR can be utilized for screening in non-oncology centers since they offer high sensitivity even when used by less experienced examiners. In the hands of inexperienced examiners, SR appears to be the best model for assessing ovarian lesions.

Evaluation of Adnexal Masses: The IOTA Concept

Ovarian lesions have a wide range of sonomorphological features with numerous different underlying benign and malignant histologies. Based on the studies conducted by the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis (IOTA) group, ovarian masses can currently be reliably characterized by ultrasound. In the following article, we explain how to use the IOTA terms and definitions and we provide insight into how to safely triage patients with an ovarian mass.

Improving diagnostic strategies for ovarian cancer in Filipino women using ultrasound imaging and a multivariate index assay

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the clinical performance and overall utility of imaging and biomarker assays in discriminating between benign and malignant ovarian masses in a Filipino population.

METHODS

This is a prospective cohort study among Filipino women undergoing assessment for an ovarian mass in a tertiary center. All included patients underwent a physical examination before level III specialist ultrasonographic and Doppler evaluation, multivariate index assay (MIA2G), and surgery for an adnexal mass. Ovarian tumors were classified as high-risk for malignancy based on the International Ovarian Tumour Analysis (IOTA) - Logistic Regression 2 (LR2) score. The ovarian imaging and biomarker results were correlated with the reference standard: histological findings.

RESULTS

Among the 379 women with adnexal masses enrolled in this study, 291 were evaluable with ultrasound imaging, biomarker assays, and histopathological results. The risk of malignancy was higher for women classified as high-risk based on IOTA-LR2 (≥10%). The sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic accuracy for the prediction of malignancy were 81.2%, 81%, and 0.81 (95% CI: 0.77-0.86) for IOTA-LR2; 77.5%, 66.7%, and 0.72 (95% CI: 0.67-0.77) for CA-125; and 91.3%, 41.2%, and 0.66 (95% CI: 0.62-0.71) for MIA2G. A combination of IOTA-LR2 and MIA2G significantly influenced the diagnostic performance and the result. When MIA2G was combined with IOTA-LR2 in parallel, the sensitivity (94.2%) and NPV (87.7%) increased, but the specificity (37.3%) decreased. When combined with IOTA-LR2 in series, there were fewer false positives, which resulted in improved specificity (85%).

CONCLUSION

This study determined the utility of ovarian imaging and a second-generation multivariate index assay in predicting the risk of ovarian malignancy. IOTA-LR2 and MIA2G were useful in classifying patients with a high risk for ovarian malignancy.

O-RADS MRI: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Diagnostic Performance and Category-wise Malignancy Rates

Background US-indeterminate adnexal lesions remain an important indication for gynecologic surgery. MRI can serve as a problem-solving tool through the use of the Ovarian-Adnexal Imaging Reporting and Data System (O-RADS) MRI lexicon, which is based on the ADNEX MR scoring system. Purpose To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of the diagnostic performance of pelvic MRI interpreted using the ADNEX or O-RADS MRI stratification systems to characterize US-indeterminate adnexal lesions and of the category-wise malignancy rates. Materials and Methods A systematic literature search from May 2013 (publication of the ADNEX MR score) to September 2022 was performed. Studies reporting the use of pelvic MRI interpreted with the ADNEX or O-RADS MRI systems to characterize US-indeterminate adnexal lesions, with pathologic examination and/or follow-up as the reference standard, were included. Summary estimates of diagnostic performance were obtained with the bivariate random-effects model, while category-wise summary malignancy rates of O-RADS MRI 2, 3, 4, and 5 lesions were obtained with a random-effects model. Effects of covariates on heterogeneity and diagnostic performance were investigated through meta-regression. Results Thirteen study parts from 12 studies (3731 women, 4520 adnexal lesions) met the inclusion criteria. Diagnostic performance meta-analysis for 4012 lesions found a 92% summary sensitivity (95% CI: 88, 95) and a 91% summary specificity (95% CI: 89, 93). The meta-analysis of malignancy rates for 3641 lesions showed summary malignancy rates of 0.1% (95% CI: 0, 1) among O-RADS MRI 2 lesions, 6% (95% CI: 3, 9) among O-RADS MRI 3 lesions, 60% (95% CI: 52, 67) among O-RADS MRI 4 lesions, and 96% (95% CI: 92, 99) among O-RADS MRI 5 lesions. Conclusion Pelvic MRI interpreted with the Ovarian-Adnexal Reporting and Data System (O-RADS) MRI lexicon had high diagnostic performance for the characterization of US-indeterminate adnexal lesions. Summary estimates of malignancy rates in the O-RADS MRI 4 and O-RADS MRI 5 categories were higher than predicted ones. © RSNA, 2022 Supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Lee and Kang in this issue.

Molecular Management of High-Grade Serous Ovarian Carcinoma

High-grade serous ovarian carcinoma (HGSOC) represents the most common form of epithelial ovarian carcinoma. The absence of specific symptoms leads to late-stage diagnosis, making HGSOC one of the gynecological cancers with the worst prognosis. The cellular origin of HGSOC and the role of reproductive hormones, genetic traits (such as alterations in P53 and DNA-repair mechanisms), chromosomal instability, or dysregulation of crucial signaling pathways have been considered when evaluating prognosis and response to therapy in HGSOC patients. However, the detection of HGSOC is still based on traditional methods such as carbohydrate antigen 125 (CA125) detection and ultrasound, and the combined use of these methods has yet to support significant reductions in overall mortality rates. The current paradigm for HGSOC management has moved towards early diagnosis via the non-invasive detection of molecular markers through liquid biopsies. This review presents an integrated view of the relevant cellular and molecular aspects involved in the etiopathogenesis of HGSOC and brings together studies that consider new horizons for the possible early detection of this gynecological cancer.

Diagnostics of Ovarian Tumors in Postmenopausal Patients

Early diagnosis of ovarian cancer remains an urgent issue owing to the continuing trend towards increasing incidence along with only marginal improvements in mortality and 5-year survival rates. Furthermore, there is a lack of a clear formulation of the concept of pathogenesis. The diagnostic values of tumor markers, their potential advantages and disadvantages, and their combination with radiation imaging methods and transvaginal sonography are discussed. More advanced imaging techniques, such as computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging have proven too expensive for widespread use. According to the World Health Organization, more than half of the world’s population does not have access to diagnostic imaging. Consequently, there is high demand for a low-cost, reliable, and safe imaging system for detecting and monitoring cancer. Currently, there is no clear algorithm available for examining and accurately diagnosing patients with postmenopausal ovarian tumors; moreover, reliable criteria allowing dynamic observation and for determining surgical access and optimal surgical intervention measures in postmenopausal patients are lacking. Medical microwave radiometry shows promising results yielding an accuracy of 90%.

Data-driven analysis of a validated risk score for ovarian cancer identifies clinically distinct patterns during follow-up and treatment

Background

Ovarian cancer is the eighth most common cancer among women and due to late detection prognosis is poor with an overall 5-year survival of 30-50%. Novel biomarkers are needed to reduce diagnostic surgery and enable detection of early-stage cancer by population screening. We have previously developed a risk score based on an 11-biomarker plasma protein assay to distinguish benign tumors (cysts) from malignant ovarian cancer in women with adnexal ovarian mass.

Methods

Protein concentrations of 11 proteins were characterized in plasma from 1120 clinical samples with a custom version of the proximity extension assay. The performance of the assay was evaluated in terms of prediction accuracy based on receiver operating characteristics (ROC) and multiple hypothesis adjusted Fisher's Exact tests on achieved sensitivity and specificity.

Results

The assay's performance is validated in two independent clinical cohorts with a sensitivity of 0.83/0.91 and specificity of 0.88/0.92. We also show that the risk score follows the clinical development and is reduced upon treatment, and increased with relapse and cancer progression. Data-driven modeling of the risk score patterns during a 2-year follow-up after diagnosis identifies four separate risk score trajectories linked to clinical development and survival. A Cox proportional hazard regression analysis of 5-year survival shows that at time of diagnosis the risk score is the second-strongest predictive variable for survival after tumor stage, whereas MUCIN-16 (CA-125) alone is not significantly predictive.

Conclusion

The robust performance of the biomarker assay across clinical cohorts and the correlation with clinical development indicates its usefulness both in the diagnostic work-up of women with adnexal ovarian mass and for predicting their clinical course.

Biomarkers in Gynecologic Tumors

Gynecologic malignancies are one of the most frequent cancers amongst women. Biomarkers are crucial for the differential diagnosis of adnexal masses; however, their potential for diagnosis is limited. In the era of difficulty in ovarian cancer screening, novel biomarkers are defined, but CA125 still remains the most valuable one. Circulating tumor DNAs, DNA hypermethylation, metabolites, microRNAs, and kallikreins have recently turned out as ovarian cancer biomarkers and are being applied to clinical practice. For uterine cancer, genomic classification has now been described, it will be used as a prognostic tool. In this chapter, we describe ovarian, endometrial, and cervical cancer biomarkers in detail.

Diagnostic Models Combining Clinical Information, Ultrasound and Biochemical Markers for Ovarian Cancer: Cochrane Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background: Ovarian cancer (OC) is a diagnostic challenge, with the majority diagnosed at late stages. Existing systematic reviews of diagnostic models either use inappropriate meta-analytic methods or do not conduct statistical comparisons of models or stratify test performance by menopausal status. Methods: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, CDSR, DARE, Health Technology Assessment Database and SCI Science Citation Index, trials registers, conference proceedings from 1991 to June 2019. Cochrane collaboration review methods included QUADAS-2 quality assessment and meta-analysis using hierarchical modelling. RMI, ROMA or ADNEX at any test positivity threshold were investigated. Histology or clinical follow-up was the reference standard. We excluded screening studies, studies restricted to pregnancy, recurrent or metastatic OC. 2 × 2 diagnostic tables were extracted separately for pre- and post-menopausal women. Results: We included 58 studies (30,121 patients, 9061 cases of ovarian cancer). Prevalence of OC ranged from 16 to 55% in studies. For premenopausal women, ROMA at a threshold of 13.1 (+/−2) and ADNEX at a threshold of 10% demonstrated significantly higher sensitivity compared to RMI I at 200 (p < 0.0001) 77.8 (72.5, 82.4), 94.9 (92.5, 96.6), and 57.1% (50.6 to 63.4) but lower specificity (p < 0.002), 92.5 (90.0, 94.4), 84.3 (81.3, 86.8), and 78.2 (75.8, 80.4). For postmenopausal women, ROMA at a threshold of 27.7 (+/−2) and AdNEX at a threshold of 10% demonstrated significantly higher sensitivity compared to RMI I at a threshold of 200 (p < 0.001) 90.4 (87.4, 92.7), 97.6 (96.2, 98.5), and 78.7 (74.3, 82.5), specificity of ROMA was comparable, whilst ADneX was lower, 85.5 (81.3, 88.9), 81.3 (76.9, 85.0) (p = 0.155), compared to RMI 55.2 (51.2, 59.1) (p < 0.001). Conclusions: In pre-menopausal women, ROMA and ADNEX offer significantly higher sensitivity but significantly decreased specificity. In post-menopausal women, ROMA demonstrates significantly higher sensitivity and comparable specificity to RMI I, ADNEX has the highest sensitivity of all models, but with significantly reduced specificity. RMI I has poor sensitivity compared to ROMA or ADNEX. Choice between ROMA and ADNEX as a replacement test will depend on cost effectiveness and resource implications.

Menopausal status, ultrasound and biomarker tests in combination for the diagnosis of ovarian cancer in symptomatic women

BACKGROUND

Ovarian cancer (OC) has the highest case fatality rate of all gynaecological cancers. Diagnostic delays are caused by non-specific symptoms. Existing systematic reviews have not comprehensively covered tests in current practice, not estimated accuracy separately in pre- and postmenopausal women, or used inappropriate meta-analytic methods.

OBJECTIVES

To establish the accuracy of combinations of menopausal status, ultrasound scan (USS) and biomarkers for the diagnosis of ovarian cancer in pre- and postmenopausal women and compare the accuracy of different test combinations.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), five other databases and three trial registries from 1991 to 2015 and MEDLINE (Ovid) and Embase (Ovid) form June 2015 to June 2019. We also searched conference proceedings from the European Society of Gynaecological Oncology, International Gynecologic Cancer Society, American Society of Clinical Oncology and Society of Gynecologic Oncology, ZETOC and Conference Proceedings Citation Index (Web of Knowledge). We searched reference lists of included studies and published systematic reviews.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included cross-sectional diagnostic test accuracy studies evaluating single tests or comparing two or more tests, randomised trials comparing two or more tests, and studies validating multivariable models for the diagnosis of OC investigating test combinations, compared with a reference standard of histological confirmation or clinical follow-up in women with a pelvic mass (detected clinically or through USS) suspicious for OC.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed quality using QUADAS-2. We used the bivariate hierarchical model to indirectly compare tests at commonly reported thresholds in pre- and postmenopausal women separately. We indirectly compared tests across all thresholds and estimated sensitivity at fixed specificities of 80% and 90% by fitting hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic (HSROC) models in pre- and postmenopausal women separately.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 59 studies (32,059 women, 9545 cases of OC). Two tests evaluated the accuracy of a combination of menopausal status and USS findings (IOTA Logistic Regression Model 2 (LR2) and the Assessment of Different NEoplasias in the adneXa model (ADNEX)); one test evaluated the accuracy of a combination of menopausal status, USS findings and serum biomarker CA125 (Risk of Malignancy Index (RMI)); and one test evaluated the accuracy of a combination of menopausal status and two serum biomarkers (CA125 and HE4) (Risk of Ovarian Malignancy Algorithm (ROMA)). Most studies were at high or unclear risk of bias in participant, reference standard, and flow and timing domains. All studies were in hospital settings. Prevalence was 16% (RMI, ROMA), 22% (LR2) and 27% (ADNEX) in premenopausal women and 38% (RMI), 45% (ROMA), 52% (LR2) and 55% (ADNEX) in postmenopausal women. The prevalence of OC in the studies was considerably higher than would be expected in symptomatic women presenting in community-based settings, or in women referred from the community to hospital with a suspicion of OC. Studies were at high or unclear applicability because presenting features were not reported, or USS was performed by experienced ultrasonographers for RMI, LR2 and ADNEX. The higher sensitivity and lower specificity observed in postmenopausal compared to premenopausal women across all index tests and at all thresholds may reflect highly selected patient cohorts in the included studies. In premenopausal women, ROMA at a threshold of 13.1 (± 2), LR2 at a threshold to achieve a post-test probability of OC of 10% and ADNEX (post-test probability 10%) demonstrated a higher sensitivity (ROMA: 77.4%, 95% CI 72.7% to 81.5%; LR2: 83.3%, 95% CI 74.7% to 89.5%; ADNEX: 95.5%, 95% CI 91.0% to 97.8%) compared to RMI (57.2%, 95% CI 50.3% to 63.8%). The specificity of ROMA and ADNEX were lower in premenopausal women (ROMA: 84.3%, 95% CI 81.2% to 87.0%; ADNEX: 77.8%, 95% CI 67.4% to 85.5%) compared to RMI 92.5% (95% CI 90.3% to 94.2%). The specificity of LR2 was comparable to RMI (90.4%, 95% CI 84.6% to 94.1%). In postmenopausal women, ROMA at a threshold of 27.7 (± 2), LR2 (post-test probability 10%) and ADNEX (post-test probability 10%) demonstrated a higher sensitivity (ROMA: 90.3%, 95% CI 87.5% to 92.6%; LR2: 94.8%, 95% CI 92.3% to 96.6%; ADNEX: 97.6%, 95% CI 95.6% to 98.7%) compared to RMI (78.4%, 95% CI 74.6% to 81.7%). Specificity of ROMA at a threshold of 27.7 (± 2) (81.5, 95% CI 76.5% to 85.5%) was comparable to RMI (85.4%, 95% CI 82.0% to 88.2%), whereas for LR2 (post-test probability 10%) and ADNEX (post-test probability 10%) specificity was lower (LR2: 60.6%, 95% CI 50.5% to 69.9%; ADNEX: 55.0%, 95% CI 42.8% to 66.6%).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In specialist healthcare settings in both premenopausal and postmenopausal women, RMI has poor sensitivity. In premenopausal women, ROMA, LR2 and ADNEX offer better sensitivity (fewer missed cancers), but for ROMA and ADNEX this is off-set by a decrease in specificity and increase in false positives. In postmenopausal women, ROMA demonstrates a higher sensitivity and comparable specificity to RMI. ADNEX has the highest sensitivity in postmenopausal women, but reduced specificity. The prevalence of OC in included studies is representative of a highly selected referred population, rather than a population in whom referral is being considered. The comparative accuracy of tests observed here may not be transferable to non-specialist settings. Ultimately health systems need to balance accuracy and resource implications to identify the most suitable test.

Management of the Adnexal Mass: Considerations for the Family Medicine Physician

Ovarian cancer is the most deadly gynecological cancer, so proper assessment of a pelvic mass is necessary in order to determine which are at high risk for malignancy and should be referred to a gynecologic oncologist. However, in a family medicine setting, evaluation and treatment of these masses can be challenging due to a lack of resources. A number of risk assessment tools are available to family medicine physicians, including imaging techniques, imaging systems, and blood-based biomarker assays each with their respective pros and cons, and varying ability to detect malignancy in pelvic masses. Effective utilization of these assessment tools can inform the care pathway for patients which present with an adnexal mass, such as expectant management for those with a low risk of malignancy, or referral to a gynecologic oncologist for surgery and staging, for those at high risk of malignancy. Triaging patients to the appropriate care pathway improves patient outcomes and satisfaction, and family medicine physicians can play a key role in this decision-making process.

Ovarian Adnexal Reporting Data System (O-RADS) for Classifying Adnexal Masses: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Simple Summary

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis aiming to assess the diagnostic performance of the Ovarian Adnexal Report Data System (O-RADS) using transvaginal ultrasound for classifying adnexal masses. Data from 11 studies comprising 4634 masses showed that the pooled estimated sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio, and diagnostic odds ratio of O-RADS system for classifying adnexal masses were 97% (95% confidence interval (CI) = 94%–98%), 77% (95% CI = 68%–84%), 4.2 (95% CI= 2.9–6.0), 0.04 (95% CI = 0.03–0.07), and 96 (95% CI = 50–185), respectively. We concluded that the O-RADS system has good sensitivity and moderate specificity for classifying adnexal masses.

Abstract

In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we aimed to assess the pooled diagnostic performance of the so-called Ovarian Adnexal Report Data System (O-RADS) for classifying adnexal masses using transvaginal ultrasound, a classification system that was introduced in 2020. We performed a search for studies reporting the use of the O-RADS system for classifying adnexal masses from January 2020 to April 2022 in several databases (Medline (PubMed), Google Scholar, Scopus, Cochrane, and Web of Science). We selected prospective and retrospective cohort studies using the O-RADS system for classifying adnexal masses with histologic diagnosis or conservative management demonstrating spontaneous resolution or persistence in cases of benign appearing masses after follow-up scan as the reference standard. We excluded studies not related to the topic under review, studies not addressing O-RADS classification, studies addressing MRI O-RADS classification, letters to the editor, commentaries, narrative reviews, consensus documents, and studies where data were not available for constructing a 2 × 2 table. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative likelihood ratios, and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) were calculated. The quality of the studies was evaluated using QUADAS-2. A total of 502 citations were identified. Ultimately, 11 studies comprising 4634 masses were included. The mean prevalence of ovarian malignancy was 32%. The risk of bias was high in eight studies for the “patient selection” domain. The risk of bias was low for the “index test” and “reference test” domains for all studies. Overall, the pooled estimated sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio, and DOR of the O-RADS system for classifying adnexal masses were 97% (95% confidence interval (CI) = 94%–98%), 77% (95% CI = 68%–84%), 4.2 (95% CI = 2.9–6.0), 0.04 (95% CI = 0.03–0.07), and 96 (95% CI = 50–185), respectively. Heterogeneity was moderate for sensitivity and high for specificity. In conclusion, the O-RADS system has good sensitivity and moderate specificity for classifying adnexal masses.

Current and Emerging Methods for Ovarian Cancer Screening and Diagnostics: A Comprehensive Review

With a 5-year survival rate of less than 50%, ovarian high-grade serous carcinoma (HGSC) is one of the most highly aggressive gynecological malignancies affecting women today. The high mortality rate of HGSC is largely attributable to delays in diagnosis, as most patients remain undiagnosed until the late stages of -disease. There are currently no recommended screening tests for ovarian cancer and there thus remains an urgent need for new diagnostic methods, particularly those that can detect the disease at early stages when clinical intervention remains effective. While diagnostics for ovarian cancer share many of the same technical hurdles as for other cancer types, the low prevalence of the disease in the general population, coupled with a notable lack of sensitive and specific biomarkers, have made the development of a clinically useful screening strategy particularly challenging. Here, we present a detailed review of the overall landscape of ovarian cancer diagnostics, with emphasis on emerging methods that employ novel protein, genetic, epigenetic and imaging-based biomarkers and/or advanced diagnostic technologies for the noninvasive detection of HGSC, particularly in women at high risk due to germline mutations such as BRCA1/2. Lastly, we discuss the translational potential of these approaches for achieving a clinically implementable solution for screening and diagnostics of early-stage ovarian cancer as a means of ultimately improving patient outcomes in both the general and high-risk populations.

Diagnostic Performance of the Ovarian-Adnexal Reporting and Data System (O-RADS) Ultrasound Risk Score in Women in the United States

IMPORTANCE

The American College of Radiology (ACR) Ovarian-Adnexal Reporting and Data System (O-RADS) ultrasound (US) risk scoring system has been studied in a selected population of women referred for suspected or known adnexal lesions. This population has a higher frequency of malignant neoplasms than women presenting to radiology departments for pelvic ultrasonography for a variety of indications, potentially impacting the diagnostic performance of the risk scoring system.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the risk of malignant neoplasm and diagnostic performance of O-RADS US risk scoring system in a multi-institutional, nonselected cohort.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This multi-institutional cohort study included a population of nonselected women in the United States who presented to radiology departments for routine pelvic ultrasonography between 2011 and 2014, with pathology confirmation imaging follow up or 2 years of clinical follow up.

EXPOSURE

Analysis of 1014 adnexal lesions using the O-RADS US risk stratification system.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Frequency of ovarian cancer and diagnostic performance of the O-RADS US risk stratification system.

RESULTS

This study included 913 women with 1014 adnexal lesions. The mean (SD) age of the patients was 42.4 (13.9 years), and 674 of 913 (73.8%) were premenopausal. The overall frequency of malignant neoplasm was 8.4% (85 of 1014 adnexal lesions). The frequency of malignant neoplasm for O-RADS US 2 was 0.5% (3 of 657 lesions; <1% expected); O-RADS US 3, 4.5% (5 of 112 lesions; <10% expected); O-RADS US 4, 11.6% (18 of 155; 10%-50% expected); and O-RADS 5, 65.6% (59 of 90 lesions; >50% expected). O-RADS US 4 was the optimum cutoff for diagnosing cancer with sensitivity of 90.6% (95% CI, 82.3%-95.9%), specificity of 81.9% (95% CI, 79.3%-84.3%), positive predictive value of 31.4% (95% CI, 25.7%-37.7%) and negative predictive value of 99.0% (95% CI, 98.0%-99.6%).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this cohort study of a nonselected patient population, the O-RADS US risk stratification system performed within the expected range as published by the ACR O-RADS US committee. The frequency of malignant neoplasm was at the lower end of the published range, partially because of the lower prevalence of cancer in a nonselected population. However, a high negative predictive value was maintained, and when a lesion can be classified as an O-RADS US 2, the risk of cancer is low, which is reassuring for both clinician and patient.

Comparison of O-RADS, GI-RADS, and ADNEX for Diagnosis of Adnexal Masses: An External Validation Study Conducted by Junior Sonologists

OBJECTIVE

To externally validate the Ovarian-adnexal Reporting and Data System (O-RADS) and evaluate its performance in differentiating benign from malignant adnexal masses (AMs) compared with the Gynecologic Imaging Reporting and Data System (GI-RADS) and Assessment of Different NEoplasias in the adneXa (ADNEX).

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was performed on 734 cases from the Second Affiliated Hospital of Fujian Medical University. All patients underwent transvaginal or transabdominal ultrasound examination. Pathological diagnoses were obtained for all the included AMs. O-RADS, GI-RADS, and ADNEX were used to evaluate AMs by two sonologists, and the diagnostic efficacy of the three systems was analyzed and compared using pathology as the gold standard. We used the kappa index to evaluate the inter-reviewer agreement (IRA).

RESULTS

A total of 734 AMs, including 564 benign masses, 69 borderline masses, and 101 malignant masses were included in this study. O-RADS (0.88) and GI-RADS (0.90) had lower sensitivity than ADNEX (0.95) (P < .05), and the PPV of O-RADS (0.98) was higher than that of ADNEX (0.96) (P < .05). These three systems showed good IRA.

CONCLUSION

O-RADS, GI-RADS, and ADNEX showed little difference in diagnostic performance among resident sonologists. These three systems have their own characteristics and can be selected according to the type of center, access to patients' clinical data, or personal comfort.

Value of Assessment of Different Neoplasias in the Adnexa in the Differential Diagnosis of Malignant Ovarian Tumor and Benign Ovarian Tumor: A Meta-analysis

To evaluate the accuracy of the assessment of different neoplasias in the adnexa (ADNEX) model in the differential diagnosis of malignant and benign ovarian tumors, the optimal cutoff value and the accuracy in diagnosing ovarian tumors at different stages, PubMed, Web of Science and Cochrane Library databases were retrieved to search literature with per-patient analysis until publication of the last study in November 2021. STATA 14.1, Meta-Disc 1.4 and Revman software 5.3 were used in the performance of meta-analysis. To explore sources of heterogeneity, a subgroup analysis was conducted for the ADNEX model. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratio, positive likelihood, negative likelihood ratio and area under the summary receiver operating characteristic curve were 0.91 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.89-0.93), 0.84 (95% CI: 0.80-0.88), 55.55 (95% CI: 40.47-76.26), 5.71 (95% CI: 4.49-7.26), 0.10 (95% CI: 0.08-0.13) and 0.94 (95% CI: 0.92-0.96) in differentiating benign and malignant ovarian tumors, respectively. The area under the curve in identifying benign, borderline, stage I and stages II-IV were 0.93, 0.73, 0.27 and 0.92. The ADNEX model had high diagnostic performance was influential in the diagnosis of benign and stage II-IV ovarian tumors.

Performance of IOTA Simple Rules, Simple Rules risk assessment, ADNEX model and O-RADS in differentiating between benign and malignant adnexal lesions in North American women

OBJECTIVES

To apply the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis (IOTA) Simple Rules (SR), the IOTA Simple Rules risk assessment (SRR), the IOTA Assessment of Different NEoplasias in the adneXa (ADNEX) model and the Ovarian-Adnexal Reporting and Data System (O-RADS) in the same cohort of North American patients and to compare their performance in preoperative discrimination between benign and malignant adnexal lesions.

METHODS

This was a single-center diagnostic accuracy study, performed between March 2018 and February 2021, which included 150 women with an adnexal lesion. Using the ADNEX model, lesions were classified prospectively, whereas the SR, SRR assessment and O-RADS were applied retrospectively. Surgery with histological analysis was performed within 6 months of the ultrasound exam. Sensitivity and specificity were determined for each testing modality and the performance of the different modalities was compared.

RESULTS

Of the 150 women, 110 (73.3%) had a benign ovarian tumor and 40 (26.7%) had a malignant tumor. The mean risk of malignancy generated by the ADNEX model without CA 125 was significantly higher in malignant vs benign lesions (63.3% vs 11.8%) and the area under the receiver-operating-characteristics curve (AUC) of the ADNEX model for differentiating between benign and malignant adnexal masses at the time of ultrasound examination was 0.937. The mean risk of malignancy generated by SRR assessment was also significantly higher in malignant vs benign lesions (74.1% vs 15.9%) and the AUC was 0.941. To compare the ADNEX model, SRR assessment and O-RADS, the malignancy risk threshold was set at ≥ 10%. This cut-off differentiates O-RADS low-risk categories (Category ≤ 3) from intermediate-to-high-risk categories (Categories 4 and 5). At this cut-off, the sensitivity of the ADNEX model was 97.5% (95% CI, 85.3%-99.9%) and the specificity was 63.6% (95% CI, 53.9%-72.4%), and, for the SRR model, the sensitivity was 100% (95% CI, 89.1%-100%) and the specificity was 51.8% (95% CI, 42.1%-61.4%). In the 113 cases to which the SR could be applied, the sensitivity was 100% (95% CI, 81.5%-100%) and the specificity was 95.6% (95% CI, 88.5%-98.6%). If the remaining 37 cases, which were inconclusive under SR, were designated 'malignant', the sensitivity remained at 100% but the specificity was reduced to 79.1% (95% CI, 70.1%-86.0%). The 150 cases fell into the following O-RADS categories: 17 (11.3%) lesions in Category 2, 34 (22.7%) in Category 3, 66 (44.0%) in Category 4 and 33 (22.0%) in Category 5. There were no histologically proven malignant lesions in Category 2 or 3. There were 14 malignant lesions in Category 4 and 26 in Category 5. The sensitivity of O-RADS using a malignancy risk threshold of ≥ 10% was 100% (95% CI, 89.1%-100.0%) and the specificity was 46.4% (95% CI, 36.9%-56.1%).

CONCLUSIONS

When IOTA terms and techniques are used, the performance of IOTA models in a North American patient population is in line with published IOTA results in other populations. The IOTA SR, SRR assessment and ADNEX model and O-RADS have similar sensitivity in the preoperative discrimination of malignant from benign pelvic tumors; however, the IOTA models have higher specificity and the algorithm does not require the use of magnetic resonance imaging. © 2022 International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

Prevalence of ovarian mass and diagnostic performance of ultrasonography pattern recognition among women at the Gynaecologic Ultrasonography Unit at University Hospital in Thailand

The aim of this retrospective study was to determine the prevalence of ovarian masses and calculate the diagnostic performance of the pattern recognition approach in ovarian pathology. A total of 1001 patients diagnosed with ovarian mass were included, of which 92.6% were diagnosed with ovarian pathology and the presence of a pathological result, while 7.4% of cases were diagnosed with functional ovarian cyst. The prevalence of ovarian malignancy was 15%. A specific ultrasound diagnosis was suggested in 62.9% of all cases, while sonographers did not explicitly provide a diagnosis in remaining cases. A subjective assessment showed 80.3% sensitivity (95% confidence interval (CI) 68.7-89.1) and 97.6% specificity (95% CI 96-98.6) in differentiating between benign and malignant ovarian masses. The sensitivity and specificity for the diagnosis of endometriotic cyst were 77.03% and 90.63% and 63.19% and 94.3% for mature cystic teratoma, respectively. In conclusion, assessment showed good performance in differentiating between benign and malignant ovarian mass and it was possible to diagnose several specific ovarian tumours. Impact StatementWhat is already known on this subject? Pattern recognition is an acceptable method for classifying ovarian mass, which exhibits specific morphological features on grey-scale ultrasonography, and can be used to predict nature and histological type.What do the results of this study add? Even in the hands of an expert examiner, there were a number of cases in which the diagnoses could not be specifically stated. Pattern recognition correctly classified 90.3% of ovarian masses as either benign or malignant and correctly provided specific histologic diagnoses after exclusion of unspecified diagnosis in 80.6% of all cases. The diagnostic performance of this approach was high in differentiating between benign and malignant ovarian mass and in diagnosing some specific ovarian pathologies.What are the implications of these findings for clinical practice and/or further research? A subjective assessment is simple and easy to use in clinical practice and has shown promising results in classifying benign and malignant ovarian mass. Moreover, it can also be used to make some specific diagnoses. However, specialised and experienced gynaecological ultrasound examiners are required to provide the most accurate diagnosis. Therefore, criteria to describe ultrasound features and convincing operators to make a definite diagnosis as often as possible should be encouraged. A prospective study to verify diagnostic performance of pattern recognition or comparing with other ultrasonographic diagnostic tools should be considered.

Efficacy of IOTA simple rules, O-RADS, and CA125 to distinguish benign and malignant adnexal masses

Objective

Ovarian cancer is the most deadly deadliest gynecological tumor in the female reproductive system. Therefore, the present study sought to determine the diagnostic performance of International Ovarian Tumor Analysis Simple Rules (IOTA SR), the Ovarian-Adnexal Reporting and Data System (O-RADS), and Cancer Antigen 125 (CA125) in discriminating benign and malignant ovarian tumors. The study also assessed whether a combination of the two ultrasound categories systems and CA125 can improve the diagnostic performance.

Methods

A total of 453 patients diagnosed with ovarian tumors were retrospectively enrolled from Fujian Cancer Hospital between January 2017 and September 2020. The data collected from patients included age, maximum lesion diameter, location, histopathology, levels of CA125, and detailed ultrasound reports. Additionally, all ultrasound images were independently assessed by two ultrasound physicians with more than 5 years of experience in the field, according to the IOTA simple rules and O-RADS guidelines. Furthermore, the area under the curve (AUC), sensitivity, and specificity of the above mentioned predictors were calculated using the receiver operating characteristic curve.

Results

Out of the 453 patients, 184 had benign lesions, while 269 had malignant ovarian tumors. In addition, the AUCs of IOTA SR, O-RADS, and CA125 in the overall population were 0.831, 0.804, and 0.812, respectively, and the sensitivities of IOTA SR, O-RADS, and CA125 were 94.42, 94.42, and 80.30%, respectively. On the other hand, the AUCs of IOTA SR combined with CA125, O-RADS combined with CA125, and IOTA SR plus O-RADS combined with CA125 were 0.900, 0.891, and 0.909, respectively. The findings also showed that the AUCs of a combination of the three approaches were significantly higher than those of individual strategies (p<0.05) but not significantly higher than the AUC of a combination of two methods (p>0.05).

Conclusion

The findings showed that a combination of IOTA SR or O-RADS in combination with CA125 may improve the ability to distinguish benign from malignant ovarian tumors.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13048-022-00947-9.

Significance of Pelvic Fluid Observed during Ovarian Cancer Screening with Transvaginal Sonogram

The primary objective was to examine the role of pelvic fluid observed during transvaginal ultrasonography (TVS) in identifying ovarian malignancy. A single-institution, observational study was conducted within the University of Kentucky Ovarian Cancer Screening trial from January 1987 to September 2019. We analyzed true-positive (TP), false-positive (FP), true-negative (TN), and false-negative (FN) groups for the presence of pelvic fluid during screening encounters. Measured outcomes were the presence and duration of fluid over successive screening encounters. Of the 48,925 women surveyed, 2001 (4.1%) had pelvic fluid present during a TVS exam. The odds ratio (OR) of detecting fluid in the comparison group (TN screen; OR = 1) significantly differed from that of the FP cases (benign pathology; OR: 13.4; 95% confidence interval (CI): 9.1–19.8), the TP cases with a low malignant potential (LMP; OR: 28; 95% CI: 26.5–29.5), TP ovarian cancer cases (OR: 50.4; 95% CI: 27.2–93.2), and FN ovarian cancer cases (OR: 59.3; 95% CI: 19.7–178.1). The mean duration that pelvic fluid was present for women with TN screens was 2.2 ± 0.05 encounters, lasting 38.7 ± 1.3 months. In an asymptomatic screening population, free fluid identified in TVS exams was more associated with ovarian malignancy than in the control group or benign ovarian tumors. While pelvic free fluid may not solely discriminate malignancy from non-malignancy, it appears to be clinically relevant and warrants thoughtful consideration.

Estimating the risk of malignancy of adnexal masses: validation of the ADNEX model in the hands of nonexpert ultrasonographers in a gynaecological oncology centre in China

Background

This study aims to validate the diagnostic accuracy of the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis (IOTA) the Assessment of Different NEoplasias in the adneXa (ADNEX) model in the preoperative diagnosis of adnexal masses in the hands of nonexpert ultrasonographers in a gynaecological oncology centre in China.

Methods

This was a single oncology centre, retrospective diagnostic accuracy study of 620 patients. All patients underwent surgery, and the histopathological diagnosis was used as a reference standard. The masses were divided into five types according to the ADNEX model: benign ovarian tumours, borderline ovarian tumours (BOTs), stage I ovarian cancer (OC), stage II-IV OC and ovarian metastasis. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was used to evaluate the ability of the ADNEX model to classify tumours into different histological types with and without cancer antigen 125 (CA 125) results.

Results

Of the 620 women, 402 (64.8%) had a benign ovarian tumour and 218 (35.2%) had a malignant ovarian tumour, including 86 (13.9%) with BOT, 75 (12.1%) with stage I OC, 53 (8.5%) with stage II-IV OC and 4 (0.6%) with ovarian metastasis. The AUC of the model to differentiate benign and malignant adnexal masses was 0.97 (95% CI, 0.96–0.98). Performance was excellent for the discrimination between benign and stage II-IV OC and between benign and ovarian metastasis, with AUCs of 0.99 (95% CI, 0.99–1.00) and 0.99 (95% CI, 0.98–1.00), respectively. The model was less effective at distinguishing between BOT and stage I OC and between BOT and ovarian metastasis, with AUCs of 0.54 (95% CI, 0.45–0.64) and 0.66 (95% CI, 0.56–0.77), respectively. When including CA125 in the model, the performance in discriminating between stage II–IV OC and stage I OC and between stage II–IV OC ovarian metastasis was improved (AUC increased from 0.88 to 0.94, P = 0.01, and from 0.86 to 0.97, p = 0.01).

Conclusions

The IOTA ADNEX model has excellent performance in differentiating benign and malignant adnexal masses in the hands of nonexpert ultrasonographers with limited experience in China. In classifying different subtypes of ovarian cancers, the model has difficulty differentiating BOTs from stage I OC and BOTs from ovarian metastases.

Added Value of Quantitative Analysis of Diffusion-Weighted Imaging in Ovarian-Adnexal Reporting and Data System Magnetic Resonance Imaging

BACKGROUND

The ovarian-adnexal reporting and data system-magnetic resonance imaging (O-RADS-MRI) score decreases the incidence of indeterminate adnexal masses from 18% to 31% with ultrasound till 10.8% to 12.5% with MRI. Further improvement of this score may be useful to improve patients' management.

PURPOSE

To evaluate the added value of quantitative diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) in the diagnosis of adnexal masses classified according to the O-RADS-MRI score.

STUDY TYPE

Prospective cohort study with retrospective DWI analysis.

POPULATION

Among 402 recruited patients, surgery was done only in 163 women (median-age: 51 years) with 201 indeterminate adnexal masses, which were included in the final analysis.

FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE

Standardized MRI (1.5 and 3-T) including diffusion and dynamic contrast-enhanced sequences (diffusion-weighted single-shot spin-echo echo-planar imaging) were used.

ASSESSMENT

Two radiologists classified the adnexal masses according to O-RADS-MRI and they were blinded to the pathology report. Two methods of quantitative analysis were applied using region-of-interest apparent-diffusion-coefficient (ROI-ADC) and whole-lesion ADC-histogram (WL-ADC).

STATISTICAL TESTS

Fisher's exact and Mann-Whitney-U tests were used to compare variables among malignant and benign lesions. Receiver-operating-characteristic (ROC) curves were constructed to examine the sensitivity/specificity of each parameter. ROI-ADC and WL-ADC of lesions with O-RADS-MRI score-4 were plotted to identify thresholds of malignant lesions. The improvement of the O-RADS-MRI score after adding these thresholds was assessed by two ROC-curves. A P < 0.05 was considered to be statistically significant.

RESULTS

Fifty-eight of the 201 lesions (28.9%) were malignant. The ROI-ADC and the WL-ADC means of malignant lesions were significantly lower than those of benign lesions. Forty-two lesions (20.9%) had an O-RADS-MRI score-4. In this subgroup, 76% of lesions with ROI-ADC < 1.7 × 10^-3  mm² /sec and WL-ADC < 2.6 × 10^-3  mm² /sec were malignant, whereas only 11.8% with ROI-ADC ≥ 1.7 × 10^-3  mm² /sec or a WL-ADC ≥ 2.6 × 10^-3  mm² /sec were malignant. The overall performance of the O-RADS-MRI score combined with these thresholds was improved.

DATA CONCLUSION

Integrating ADC-thresholds in O-RADS-MRI score-4 may discriminate low-to-intermediate and intermediate-to-high malignancy risk groups.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

2 TECHNICAL EFFICACY STAGE: 2.

Raman spectroscopy of blood and urine liquid biopsies for ovarian cancer diagnosis: identification of chemotherapy effects

Blood plasma and serum Raman spectroscopy for ovarian cancer diagnosis has been applied in pilot studies, with promising results. Herein, a comparative analysis of these biofluids, with a novel assessment of urine, was conducted by Raman spectroscopy application in a large patient cohort. Spectra were obtained through samples measurements from 116 ovarian cancer patients and 307 controls. Principal component analysis identified significant spectral differences between cancers without previous treatment (n = 71) and following neo-adjuvant chemotherapy (NACT), (n = 45). Application of five classification algorithms achieved up to 73% sensitivity for plasma, high specificities and accuracies for both blood biofluids, and lower performance for urine. A drop in sensitivities for the NACT group in plasma and serum, with an opposite trend in urine, suggest that Raman spectroscopy could identify chemotherapy-related changes. This study confirms that biofluids' Raman spectroscopy can contribute in ovarian cancer's diagnostic work-up and demonstrates its potential in monitoring treatment response.

Toward improvement of screening through mass spectrometry-based proteomics: ovarian cancer as a case study

Ovarian cancer is one of the leading causes of cancer related deaths affecting United States women. Early-stage detection of ovarian cancer has been linked to increased survival, however, current screening methods, such as biomarker testing, have proven to be ineffective in doing so. Therefore, further developments are necessary to be able to achieve positive patient prognosis. Ongoing efforts are being made in biomarker discovery towards clinical applications in screening for early-stage ovarian cancer. In this perspective, we discuss and provide examples for several workflows employing mass spectrometry-based proteomics towards protein biomarker discovery and characterization in the context of ovarian cancer; workflows include protein identification and characterization as well as intact protein profiling. We also discuss the opportunities to merge these workflows for a multiplexed approach for biomarkers. Lastly, we provide our insight as to future developments that may serve to enhance biomarker discovery workflows while also considering translational potential.

Biomarkers in Ovarian Pathology: From Screening to Diagnosis. Review of the Literature

Background: Ovarian cancer has a low incidence, but high mortality due to a habitual diagnosis in advanced cancer stages. Currently, used biomarkers have good sensitivity, but low specificity. Aim: To determine the usefulness of the biomarkers and algorithms used up to now in the screening, diagnosis, response to treatments and identification of recurrence in patients with ovarian masses. Methodology: Systematic search of publications in English in the Medline-PubMed database with the terms: “biomarkers”, “tumour”, “tumour biomarkers”, “marker”, “tumour marker”, “ovarian cancer”, “ovarian”, “Neoplasms”, “cancer”, CA-125 Antigen; Human Epididymis-specific Protein E4; Risk of Malignancy Index (RMI); Risk of Ovarian Malignancy Algorithm (ROMA); Ovarian Neoplasms. Original articles, clinical trials, reviews, systematic reviews and meta-analyses, published between January 2000 and November 2020, were selected to determine the usefulness (among others) of CA 125 and HE4 antigen in ovarian cancer. Results: Finally, 39 transcendental publications were selected to write this article to determine the usefulness of tumour markers and algorithms in ovarian cancer. Conclusions: The usefulness of the tumour markers antigen CA125 and antigen HE4 individually or as a basis for decision-making algorithms has low specificity; however, there is little evidence that confirms their usefulness as markers in ovarian cancer screening.

Conservative Management of Asymptomatic Adnexal Masses Classified as Benign by the IOTA ADNEX Model: A Prospective Multicenter Portuguese Study

This prospective multicentric study aiming to determine the incidence of complications (malignant transformation, torsion or rupture) during conservative management of adnexal masses was performed in two Portuguese tertiary referral hospitals. It included ≥18-year-old, non-pregnant patients with asymptomatic adnexal masses (associated IOTA ADNEX risk of malignancy < 10%) sonographically diagnosed between January 2016 and December 2020. Conservative patient management consisted of serial clinical and ultrasound assessment up to 60 months of follow-up, spontaneous resolution of the formation or surgical excision (median follow-up: 17.8; range 9–48 months). From the 573 masses monitored (328 premenopausal and 245 postmenopausal adnexal masses), no complications were observed in 99.5%. The annual lesion growth rates and increases in morphological complexity were similar in the premenopausal and postmenopausal patients. Spontaneous resolution, evidenced in 16.4% of the patients, was more common in the premenopausal group (p < 0.05). Surgical intervention was performed in 18.4% of the cases; one borderline and one invasive FIGO IA stage cancer were diagnosed. There was an isolated case of ovary torsion (0.17%). These data support conservative management as a safe option for sonographically benign, stable and asymptomatic adnexal masses before and after menopause and highlight the need for expedite treatment of symptomatic or increased-morphological-complexity lesions.

Machine Learning: Applications and Advanced Progresses of Radiomics in Endocrine Neoplasms

Endocrine neoplasms remain a great threat to human health. It is extremely important to make a clear diagnosis and timely treatment of endocrine tumors. Machine learning includes radiomics, which has long been utilized in clinical cancer research. Radiomics refers to the extraction of valuable information by analyzing a large amount of standard data with high-throughput medical images mainly including computed tomography, positron emission tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, and ultrasound. With the quantitative imaging analysis and model building, radiomics can reflect specific underlying characteristics of a disease that otherwise could not be evaluated visually. More and more promising results of radiomics in oncological practice have been seen in recent years. Radiomics may have the potential to supplement traditional imaging analysis and assist in providing precision medicine for patients. Radiomics had developed rapidly in endocrine neoplasms practice in the past decade. In this review, we would introduce the general workflow of radiomics and summarize the applications and developments of radiomics in endocrine neoplasms in recent years. The limitations of current radiomic research studies and future development directions would also be discussed.

Sentinel lymph node identification in early stage ovarian cancer: is it still possible after prior tumor resection?

Objective

Sentinel lymph node (SLN) detection in ovarian cancer is feasible when tracers are injected before the pathological ovary is resected. This study aims to investigate whether the SLN identification is also feasible in patients whose ovarian tumor has already been resected with injection of the tracer into the ovarian ligaments stumps, i.e. in the event that a frozen section confirms malignancy.

Methods

Patients who underwent laparotomy with frozen section confirming an ovarian malignancy, and those who underwent a second staging laparotomy after prior resection of a malignant ovarian mass, were included. Blue dye and a radioactive isotope were injected in the stumps of the ligamentum ovarium proprium and the ligamentum infundibulo-pelvicum. After an interval of at least 15-min, the sentinel node(s) were identified using either the gamma-probe and / or blue dye.

Results

A total of 11 patients were included in the study, the sentinel node (SLN) procedure was completed in all 11 patients. At least one SLN was identified in 3 patients, resulting in a rather low detection rate of 27,3%.

Conclusion

In this study we showed that SLN procedure after (previous) resection of the tumor seems inferior to detect sentinel nodes when compared to injection of the tracer in the ovarian ligaments before tumor resection.

Trial registration

NCT02540551

Management of adnexal mass: A comparison of five national guidelines

OBJECTIVES

General gynecologists are often the first to face a newly diagnosed adnexal mass. Bothering mass symptoms, fertility issues, and the effect of a possible surgical intervention on fertility in term of mechanical factor and ovarian follicular reserve are all considerations that should be accounted for. This study summarizes and compares five different adnexal mass management guidelines, enabling clinicians to peruse consensus and controversy issues, thus choosing the optimal management method.

DESIGN

We retrieved, reviewed and compared the most recent national guidelines of adnexal mass management from the national societies of the United States (American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists), England (the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists), Canada (the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada), Australia (the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners), and France (French College of Gynaecologists and Obstetricians).

RESULTS

There is a broad consensus regarding the role of transvaginal ultrasound as part of the initial evaluation of an adnexal mass and the radiological characteristics suggesting it being malignant. The role of transabdominal ultrasound or doppler mode is controversial. The use of MRI in cases of indeterminate adnexal masses is widely accepted. Ultrasound-guided aspiration is generally not recommended. There is a broad consensus that CA-125 should not be used as an ovarian cancer disease screening tool, though its role in the initial evaluation of adnexal masses is controversial. Risk prediction models are generally accepted, particularly the 'International Ovarian Tumor Analysis simple rules' and the 'Risk of Malignancy Index'.

CONCLUSION

Adnexal mass management national guidelines, though similar, had noticeable variations in the content, references cited, and recommendations made. While this variation might raise a concern as to the reproducibility of synthesizing literature, it can help practitioners present all spectra of recommendations and available data.

Accuracy of Pretreatment Ultrasonography Assessment of Intra-Abdominal Spread in Epithelial Ovarian Cancer: A Prospective Study

The aim of this study was to test the accuracy of ultrasonography performed by gynecological oncologists for the preoperative assessment of epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) spread in the pelvis and abdominal cavity. A prospective, observational cohort study was performed at a single tertiary cancer care unit. Patients with suspected EOC were recruited and underwent comprehensive transvaginal and abdominal ultrasonography performed by a gynecological oncologist. Sixteen intra-abdominal localizations and parameters were assessed using ultrasonography and compared with surgical-pathological status (reference standard). Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and overall accuracy were calculated. Differences were analyzed using Fisher's exact and chi-square tests. Ultimately, we included 132 patients (median age 62 years), of whom 67% were in stage IIIC-IVB and 72% had serous cancer. Overall prediction accuracies for the involvement of the omentum, small bowel mesentery root, and frozen pelvis, and detecting ascites were >90%. Detecting the involvement of the pelvis peritoneum, liver and spleen hilum, and rectosigmoid colon, and predictions of disease stage and residual disease had overall accuracies of 80-90%. The lowest accuracy was for involvement of the abdominal peritoneum (69%) and diaphragm peritoneum (right 71%; left 75%) and surgical complexity prediction (77%). Stratification of results by presence or absence of ascites revealed significantly higher specificity of ultrasonography (clinically meaningful) for assessments of the abdominal/pelvic peritoneum, spleen hilum, and rectum wall, if there were ascites. A gynecological oncologist, experienced in surgery and sonology, performing comprehensive ultrasonography on patients with EOC can accurately detect intraperitoneal lesions and recognize critical disease manifestations and predict stage, surgical complexity, and residual disease, which allow accurate qualification of patients for primary debulking surgery or neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

[Adnexal Masses: Clinical Application of Multiparametric MR Imaging & O-RADS MRI]

Incidental adnexal masses considered indeterminate for malignancy are commonly observed on ultrasonography. Multiparametric MRI is the imaging modality of choice for the evaluation of sonographically indeterminate adnexal masses. Conventional MRI enables a confident pathologic diagnosis of various benign lesions due to accurate tissue characterization of fat, blood, fibrous tissue, and solid components. Additionally, functional imaging sequences, including perfusion- and diffusion-weighted imaging, improve the diagnostic efficacy of conventional MRI in differentiating benign from malignant adnexal masses. The ovarian-adnexal reporting and data system (O-RADS) MRI was recently designed to provide consistent interpretations in assigning risk of malignancy to ovarian and other adnexal masses, and to provide a management recommendation for each risk category. In this review, we describe the clinical application of multiparametric MRI for the evaluation of adnexal masses and introduce the O-RADS MRI risk stratification system.

Consideration should be given to smoking, endometriosis, renal function (eGFR) and age when interpreting CA125 and HE4 in ovarian tumor diagnostics

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the impact of different biologic, histopathologic and lifestyle factors on serum levels of human epididymis protein 4 (HE4) and Cancer antigen 125 (CA125) in the diagnostic work up of women with an ovarian cyst or pelvic tumor.

METHODS

The statistical evaluation was performed on a population of 445 women diagnosed with a benign ovarian disease, included in a large Swedish multicenter trial (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03193671). Multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to distinguish between the true negatives and false positives through adjusting for biologic, histopathologic and lifestyle factors on serum samples of CA125 and HE4 separately. The likelihood ratio test was used to determine statistical significance and Benjamini-Hochberg correction to adjust for multiple testing.

RESULTS

A total of 31% of the women had false positive CA125 but only 9% had false positive results of HE4. Smoking (OR 6.62 95% CI 2.93-15.12) and impaired renal function, measured by eGFR (OR 0.18 95% CI 0.08-0.39), were independently predictive of falsely elevated serum levels of HE4. Endometriosis was the only variable predictive of falsely elevated serum levels of CA125 (OR 7.96 95% CI 4.53-14.39). Age correlated with increased serum levels of HE4.

CONCLUSIONS

Smoking, renal failure, age and endometriosis are factors that independently should be considered when assessing serum levels of HE4 and CA125 in women with an ovarian cyst or pelvic mass to avoid false indications of malignant disease.

Detection of ovarian cancer (± neo-adjuvant chemotherapy effects) via ATR-FTIR spectroscopy: comparative analysis of blood and urine biofluids in a large patient cohort

Ovarian cancer remains the most lethal gynaecological malignancy, as its timely detection at early stages remains elusive. Attenuated total reflection Fourier-transform infrared (ATR-FTIR) spectroscopy of biofluids has been previously applied in pilot studies for ovarian cancer diagnosis, with promising results. Herein, these initial findings were further investigated by application of ATR-FTIR spectroscopy in a large patient cohort. Spectra were obtained by measurements of blood plasma and serum, as well as urine, from 116 patients with ovarian cancer and 307 patients with benign gynaecological conditions. A preliminary chemometric analysis revealed significant spectral differences in ovarian cancer patients without previous chemotherapy (n = 71) and those who had received neo-adjuvant chemotherapy-NACT (n = 45), so these groups were compared separately with benign controls. Classification algorithms with blind predictive model validation demonstrated that serum was the best biofluid, achieving 76% sensitivity and 98% specificity for ovarian cancer detection, whereas urine exhibited poor performance. A drop in sensitivities for the NACT ovarian cancer group in plasma and serum indicates the potential of ATR-FTIR spectroscopy to identify chemotherapy-related spectral changes. Comparisons of regression coefficient plots for identification of biomarkers suggest that glycoproteins (such as CA125) are the main classifiers for ovarian cancer detection and responsible for smaller differences in spectra between NACT patients and benign controls. This study confirms the capacity of biofluids' ATR-FTIR spectroscopy (mainly blood serum) to diagnose ovarian cancer with high accuracy and demonstrates its potential in monitoring response to chemotherapy, which is reported for the first time. ATR-FTIR spectroscopy of blood serum achieves good segregation of ovarian cancers from benign controls, with attenuation of differences following neo-adjuvant chemotherapy.

ESGO/ISUOG/IOTA/ESGE Consensus Statement on preoperative diagnosis of ovarian tumors

The European Society of Gynaecological Oncology (ESGO), the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology (ISUOG), the International Ovarian Tumour Analysis (IOTA) group and the European Society for Gynaecological Endoscopy (ESGE) jointly developed clinically relevant and evidence-based statements on the preoperative diagnosis of ovarian tumors, including imaging techniques, biomarkers and prediction models. ESGO/ISUOG/IOTA/ESGE nominated a multidisciplinary international group, including expert practising clinicians and researchers who have demonstrated leadership and expertise in the preoperative diagnosis of ovarian tumors and management of patients with ovarian cancer (19 experts across Europe). A patient representative was also included in the group. To ensure that the statements were evidence-based, the current literature was reviewed and critically appraised. Preliminary statements were drafted based on the review of the relevant literature. During a conference call, the whole group discussed each preliminary statement and a first round of voting was carried out. Statements were removed when consensus among group members was not obtained. The voters had the opportunity to provide comments/suggestions with their votes. The statements were then revised accordingly. Another round of voting was carried out according to the same rules to allow the whole group to evaluate the revised version of the statements. The group achieved consensus on 18 statements. This Consensus Statement presents these ESGO/ISUOG/IOTA/ESGE statements on the preoperative diagnosis of ovarian tumors and the assessment of carcinomatosis, together with a summary of the evidence supporting each statement.

Guideline No. 403: Initial Investigation and Management of Adnexal Masses

OBJECTIVES

To aid primary care physicians, emergency medicine physicians, and gynaecologists in the initial investigation of adnexal masses, defined as lumps that appear near the uterus or in or around ovaries, fallopian tubes, or surrounding connective tissue, and to outline recommendations for identifying women who would benefit from a referral to a gynaecologic oncologist for further management.

INTENDED USERS

Gynaecologists, obstetricians, family physicians, general surgeons, emergency medicine specialists, radiologists, sonographers, nurses, medical learners, residents, and fellows.

TARGET POPULATION

Adult women 18 years of age and older presenting for the evaluation of an adnexal mass.

OPTIONS

Women with adnexal masses should be assessed for personal risk factors, history, and physical findings. Initial evaluation should also include imaging and laboratory testing to triage women for management of their care either by a gynaecologic oncologist or as per SOGC guideline no. 404 on the initial investigation and management of benign ovarian masses.

EVIDENCE

A search of PubMed, Cochrane Wiley, and the Cochrane systematic reviews was conducted in January 2018 for English-language materials involving human subjects published since 2000 using three sets of terms: (i) ovarian cancer, ovarian carcinoma, adnexal disease, ovarian neoplasm, adnexal mass, fallopian tube disease, fallopian tube neoplasm, ovarian cyst, and ovarian tumour; (ii) the above terms in combination with predict neoplasm staging, follow-up, and staging; and (iii) the above two sets of terms in combination with ultrasound, tumour marker, CA 125, CEA, CA19-9, HE4, multivariable-index-assay, risk-of-ovarian-malignancy-algorithm, risk-of-malignancy-index, diagnostic imaging, CT, MRI, and PET. Relevant evidence was selected for inclusion in descending order of quality of evidence as follows: meta-analyses, systematic reviews, guidelines, randomized controlled trials, prospective cohort studies, observational studies, non-systematic reviews, case series, and reports. Additional articles were identified through cross-referencing the identified reviews. The total number of studies identified was 2350, with 59 being included in this review.

VALIDATION METHODS

The content and recommendations were drafted and agreed upon by the authors. The Executive and Board of the Society of Gynecologic Oncology of Canada reviewed the content and submitted comments for consideration. The Board of Directors of the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada approved the final draft for publication. The quality of evidence was rated using the criteria described in the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology framework (Table A1 of Online Appendix A). See Table A2 of Online Appendix A for the interpretation of strong and weak recommendations. The summary of findings is available upon request.

BENEFITS, HARMS, COSTS

Adnexal masses are common, and guidelines on how to triage them and manage the care of patients presenting with adnexal masses will continue to guide the practice of primary care providers and gynaecologists. Ovarian cancer outcomes are improved when initial surgery is performed by a gynaecologic oncologist, likely as a result of complete surgical staging and optimal cytoreduction. Given these superior outcomes, guidelines to assist in the triage of adnexal masses and the referral and management of the care of patients with an adnexal mass are critical.

SUMMARY STATEMENTS (GRADE RATINGS IN PARENTHESES)

RECOMMENDATIONS (GRADE RATINGS IN PARENTHESES).

Diagnostic Accuracy of the ADNEX Model for Ovarian Cancer at the 15% Cut-Off Value: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Objectives

To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of the ADNEX model for ovarian cancer at the 15% cut-off value.

Methods

Studies on the identified diagnosis of the ADNEX model for ovarian cancer published in PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library and Web of Science databases from January 1st, 2014 to February 20th, 2021 were searched. Two researchers independently screened the retrieved studies and extracted the basic features and parameter data. The quality of the eligible studies was evaluated by Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2, and the result was summarized by Review Manager 5.3. Meta-Disc 1.4 and STATA 16.0 were used in statistical analysis. Heterogeneity of this meta-analysis was calculated. Meta-regression was performed to investigate the potential sources of heterogeneity. Sensitivity analysis and Deek's funnel plot analysis were conducted to evaluate the stability and publication bias, respectively.

Results

280 studies were initially retrieved through the search strategy, and 10 eligible studies were ultimately included. The random-effects model was selected for data synthesis. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio, diagnostic odds ratio and the area under the summary receiver operating characteristic curve were 0.92 (95% CI: 0.89-0.94), 0.82 (95% CI: 0.78-0.86), 5.2 (95% CI: 4.1-6.4), 0.10 (95% CI: 0.07-0.13), 54.0 (95% CI: 37.0-77.0) and 0.95 (95% CI: 0.91-0.95). Meta-regression based on study design, country, enrollment and blind method was not statistically significant. This meta-analysis was stable with no obvious publication bias.

Conclusions

The ADNEX model at the 15% cut-off had high diagnostic accuracy in identifying ovarian cancer.

ESGO/ISUOG/IOTA/ESGE Consensus Statement on pre-operative diagnosis of ovarian tumors

The European Society of Gynaecological Oncology (ESGO), the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology (ISUOG), the International Ovarian Tumour Analysis (IOTA) group, and the European Society for Gynaecological Endoscopy (ESGE) jointly developed clinically relevant and evidence-based statements on the pre-operative diagnosis of ovarian tumors, including imaging techniques, biomarkers, and prediction models. ESGO/ISUOG/IOTA/ESGE nominated a multidisciplinary international group, including expert practising clinicians and researchers who have demonstrated leadership and expertise in the pre-operative diagnosis of ovarian tumors and management of patients with ovarian cancer (19 experts across Europe). A patient representative was also included in the group. To ensure that the statements were evidence-based, the current literature was reviewed and critically appraised. Preliminary statements were drafted based on the review of the relevant literature. During a conference call, the whole group discussed each preliminary statement and a first round of voting was carried out. Statements were removed when a consensus among group members was not obtained. The voters had the opportunity to provide comments/suggestions with their votes. The statements were then revised accordingly. Another round of voting was carried out according to the same rules to allow the whole group to evaluate the revised version of the statements. The group achieved consensus on 18 statements. This Consensus Statement presents these ESGO/ISUOG/IOTA/ESGE statements on the pre-operative diagnosis of ovarian tumors and the assessment of carcinomatosis, together with a summary of the evidence supporting each statement.

Ultrasound evaluation of ovarian masses and assessment of the extension of ovarian malignancy

The current review sums up the literature on the diagnostic performance of models to predict malignancy in adnexal masses and the ability of ultrasound to make a specific diagnosis in adnexal masses. A summary of the role of ultrasound in assessing the extension of malignant ovarian disease is also provided.

Comparison of the Diagnostic Performances of Ultrasound-Based Models for Predicting Malignancy in Patients With Adnexal Masses

AIM

This study aimed to compare different ultrasound-based International Ovarian Tumor Analysis (IOTA) prediction models, namely, the Simple Rules (SRs) the Assessment of Different NEoplasias in the adneXa (ADNEX) models, and the Risk of Malignancy Index (RMI), for the pre-operative diagnosis of adnexal mass.

METHODS

This single-centre diagnostic accuracy study involved 486 patients. All ultrasound examinations were analyzed and the prediction models were applied. Pathology was the clinical reference standard. The diagnostic performances of prediction models were measured by evaluating receiver-operating characteristic curves, sensitivities, specificities, positive and negative predictive values, positive and negative likelihood ratios, and diagnostic odds ratios.

RESULTS

To discriminate benign and malignant tumors, areas under the ROC curves (AUCs) for ADNEX models were 0.94 (95% CI: 0.92-0.96) with CA125 and 0.94 (95% CI: 0.91-0.96) without CA125, which were significantly higher than the AUCs for RMI I-III: 0.87 (95% CI: 0.83-0.90), 0.83 (95% CI: 0.80-0.86), and 0.82 (95% CI: 0.78-0.86), (all P < 0.0001). At a cut-off of 10%, the ADNEX model with CA125 had the highest sensitivity (0.93; 95% CI: 0.87-0.97) compared with the other models. The SRs model achieved a sensitivity of 0.93 (95% CI: 0.86-0.97) and a specificity of 0.86 (95% CI: 0.82-0.89) when inconclusive diagnoses (11.7%) were classified as malignant.

CONCLUSION

ADNEX and SRs models were excellent at characterising adnexal masses which were superior to the RMI in Chinese patients.

ESGO/ISUOG/IOTA/ESGE Consensus Statement on preoperative diagnosis of ovarian tumours

The European Society of Gynaecological Oncology (ESGO), the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology (ISUOG), the International Ovarian Tumour Analysis (IOTA) group and the European Society for Gynaecological Endoscopy (ESGE) jointly developed clinically relevant and evidence-based statements on the preoperative diagnosis of ovarian tumours, including imaging techniques, biomarkers and prediction models. ESGO/ISUOG/IOTA/ESGE nominated a multidisciplinary international group, including expert practising clinicians and researchers who have demonstrated leadership and expertise in the preoperative diagnosis of ovarian tumours and management of patients with ovarian cancer (19 experts across Europe). A patient representative was also included in the group. To ensure that the statements were evidence-based, the current literature was reviewed and critically appraised. Preliminary statements were drafted based on the review of the relevant literature. During a conference call, the whole group discussed each preliminary statement and a first round of voting was carried out. Statements were removed when a consensus among group members was not obtained. The voters had the opportunity to provide comments/suggestions with their votes. The statements were then revised accordingly. Another round of voting was carried out according to the same rules to allow the whole group to evaluate the revised version of the statements. The group achieved consensus on 18 statements. This Consensus Statement presents these ESGO/ISUOG/IOTA/ESGE statements on the preoperative diagnosis of ovarian tumours and the assessment of carcinomatosis, together with a summary of the evidence supporting each statement.

Copenhagen Index versus ROMA in preoperative ovarian malignancy risk stratification: Result from the first Vietnamese prospective cohort study

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic performances of the Copenhagen Index (CPH-I) and Risk of Ovarian Malignancy Algorithm (ROMA) in the preoperative prediction of ovarian cancer.

METHODS

In a prospective cohort study, data were collected from 475 patients with ovarian masses diagnosed by gynecologic examination / ultrasound who were hospitalized at the Departments of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Hue University of Medicine and Pharmacy Hospital and Hue Central Hospital, Vietnam, between January 2018 and June 2020. ROMA and CPH-I were calculated based on measurements of serum carbohydrate antigen (CA-125) and human epididymis protein (HE4). The final diagnosis was based on clinical features, radiologic and histologic findings, and the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) 2014 stages of ovarian cancer were recorded. Matching the values of ROMA and CPH-I to postoperative histopathology reports resulted in the preoperative prediction values.

RESULTS

Among the 475 women, 408 had benign tumors, 5 had borderline tumors and 62 had malignant tumors. The two indices showed similar discriminatory performances with no significant differences (p > 0.05). At an optimal cut-off, the sensitivities/specificities of ROMA and CPH-I for ovarian cancer diagnosis were 74.2% and 91.8%, 87.1% and 78.5%, respectively. The optimal cut-off for CPH-I was 1.89%. The areas under the ROC curves (AUCs) of ROMA and CPH-I were 0.882 (95% CI: 0.849-0.909) and 0.898 (95% CI: 0.867-0.924), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The introduction of the Copenhagen Index to help stratify the malignancy risk of ovarian tumors, irrespective of menopausal status, might be applied as a simple alternative with a similar efficacy to ROMA in clinical practice.