Evaluating the risk of ovarian cancer before surgery using the ADNEX model: a multicentre external validation study

Risk-prediction models in postmenopausal patients with symptoms of suspected ovarian cancer in the UK (ROCkeTS): a multicentre, prospective diagnostic accuracy study

BACKGROUND

Multiple risk-prediction models are used in clinical practice to triage patients as being at low risk or high risk of ovarian cancer. In the ROCkeTS study, we aimed to identify the best diagnostic test for ovarian cancer in symptomatic patients, through head-to-head comparisons of risk-prediction models, in a real-world setting. Here, we report the results for the postmenopausal cohort.

METHODS

In this multicentre, prospective diagnostic accuracy study, we recruited newly presenting female patients aged 16-90 years with non-specific symptoms and raised CA125 or abnormal ultrasound results (or both) who had been referred via rapid access, elective clinics, or emergency presentations from 23 hospitals in the UK. Patients with normal CA125 and simple ovarian cysts of smaller than 5 cm in diameter, active non-ovarian malignancy, or previous ovarian malignancy, or those who were pregnant or declined a transvaginal scan, were ineligible. In this analysis, only postmenopausal participants were included. Participants completed a symptom questionnaire, gave a blood sample, and had transabdominal and transvaginal ultrasounds performed by International Ovarian Tumour Analysis consortium (IOTA)-certified sonographers. Index tests were Risk of Malignancy 1 (RMI1) at a threshold of 200, Risk of Malignancy Algorithm (ROMA) at multiple thresholds, IOTA Assessment of Different Neoplasias in the Adnexa (ADNEX) at thresholds of 3% and 10%, IOTA SRRisk model at thresholds of 3% and 10%, IOTA Simple Rules (malignant vs benign, or inconclusive), and CA125 at 35 IU/mL. In a post-hoc analysis, the Ovarian Adnexal and Reporting Data System (ORADS) at 10% was derived from IOTA ultrasound variables using established methods since ORADS was described after completion of recruitment. Index tests were conducted by study staff masked to the results of the reference standard. The comparator was RMI1 at the 250 threshold (the current UK National Health Service standard of care). The reference standard was surgical or biopsy tissue histology or cytology within 3 months, or a self-reported diagnosis of ovarian cancer at 12 month follow-up. The primary outcome was diagnostic accuracy at predicting primary invasive ovarian cancer versus benign or normal histology, assessed by analysing the sensitivity, specificity, C-index, area under receiver operating characteristic curve, positive and negative predictive values, and calibration plots in participants with conclusive reference standard results and available index test data. This study is registered with the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number registry (ISRCTN17160843).

FINDINGS

Between July 13, 2015, and Nov 30, 2018, 1242 postmenopausal patients were recruited, of whom 215 (17%) had primary ovarian cancer. 166 participants had missing, inconclusive, or other reference standard results; therefore, data from a maximum of 1076 participants were used to assess the index tests for the primary outcome. Compared with RMI1 at 250 (sensitivity 82·9% [95% CI 76·7 to 88·0], specificity 87·4% [84·9 to 89·6]), IOTA ADNEX at 10% was more sensitive (difference of -13·9% [-20·2 to -7·6], p<0·0001) but less specific (difference of 28·5% [24·7 to 32·3], p<0·0001). ROMA at 29·9 had similar sensitivity (difference of -3·6% [-9·1 to 1·9], p=0·24) but lower specificity (difference of 5·2% [2·5 to 8·0], p=0·0001). RMI1 at 200 had similar sensitivity (difference of -2·1% [-4·7 to 0·5], p=0·13) but lower specificity (difference of 3·0% [1·7 to 4·3], p<0·0001). IOTA SRRisk model at 10% had similar sensitivity (difference of -4·3% [-11·0 to -2·3], p=0·23) but lower specificity (difference of 16·2% [12·6 to 19·8], p<0·0001). IOTA Simple Rules had similar sensitivity (difference of -1·6% [-9·3 to 6·2], p=0·82) and specificity (difference of -2·2% [-5·1 to 0·6], p=0·14). CA125 at 35 IU/mL had similar sensitivity (difference of -2·1% [-6·6 to 2·3], p=0·42) but higher specificity (difference of 6·7% [4·3 to 9·1], p<0·0001). In a post-hoc analysis, when compared with RMI1 at 250, ORADS achieved similar sensitivity (difference of -2·1%, 95% CI -8·6 to 4·3, p=0·60) and lower specificity (difference of 10·2%, 95% CI 6·8 to 13·6, p<0·0001).

INTERPRETATION

In view of its higher sensitivity than RMI1 at 250, despite some loss in specificity, we recommend that IOTA ADNEX at 10% should be considered as the new standard-of-care diagnostic in ovarian cancer for postmenopausal patients.

FUNDING

UK National Institute of Heath Research.

Prospective external validation of IOTA methods for classifying adnexal masses and retrospective assessment of two-step strategy using benign descriptors and ADNEX model: Portuguese multicenter study

OBJECTIVES

To externally and prospectively validate the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis (IOTA) Simple Rules (SRs), Logistic Regression model 2 (LR2) and Assessment of Different NEoplasias in the adneXa (ADNEX) model in a Portuguese population, comparing these approaches with subjective assessment and the risk-of-malignancy index (RMI), as well as with each other. This study also aimed to retrospectively validate the IOTA two-step strategy, using modified benign simple descriptors (MBDs) followed by the ADNEX model in cases in which MBDs were not applicable.

METHODS

This was a prospective multicenter diagnostic accuracy study conducted between January 2016 and December 2021 of consecutive patients with an ultrasound diagnosis of at least one adnexal tumor, who underwent surgery at one of three tertiary referral centers in Lisbon, Portugal. All ultrasound assessments were performed by Level-II or -III sonologists with IOTA certification. Patient clinical data and serum CA 125 levels were collected from hospital databases. Each adnexal mass was classified as benign or malignant using subjective assessment, RMI, IOTA SRs, LR2 and the ADNEX model (with and without CA 125). The reference standard was histopathological diagnosis. In the second phase, all adnexal tumors were classified retrospectively using the two-step strategy (MBDs + ADNEX). Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, positive and negative likelihood ratios and overall accuracy were determined for all methods. Receiver-operating-characteristics curves were constructed and corresponding areas under the curve (AUC) were determined for RMI, LR2, the ADNEX model and the two-step strategy. The ADNEX model calibration plots were constructed using locally estimated scatterplot smoothing (LOESS).

RESULTS

Of the 571 patients included in the study, 428 had benign disease and 143 had malignant disease (prevalence of malignancy, 25.0%), of which 42 had borderline ovarian tumor, 93 had primary invasive adnexal cancer and eight had metastatic tumors in the adnexa. Subjective assessment had an overall sensitivity of 97.9% and a specificity of 83.6% for distinguishing between benign and malignant lesions. RMI showed high specificity (95.6%) but very low sensitivity (58.7%), with an AUC of 0.913. The IOTA SRs were applicable in 80.0% of patients, with a sensitivity of 94.8% and specificity of 98.6%. The IOTA LR2 had a sensitivity of 84.6%, specificity of 86.9% and an AUC of 0.939, at a malignancy risk cut-off of 10%. At the same cut-off, the sensitivity, specificity and AUC for the ADNEX model with vs without CA 125 were 95.8% vs 98.6%, 82.5% vs 79.7% and 0.962 vs 0.960, respectively. The ADNEX model gave heterogeneous results for distinguishing between benign masses and different subtypes of malignancy, with the highest AUC (0.991) for discriminating benign masses from primary invasive adnexal cancer Stages II-IV, and the lowest AUC (0.696) for discriminating primary invasive adnexal cancer Stage I from metastatic lesion in the adnexa. The calibration plot suggested underestimation of the risk by the ADNEX model compared with the observed proportion of malignancy. The MBDs were applicable in 26.3% (150/571) of cases, of which none was malignant. The two-step strategy using the ADNEX model in the second step only, with and without CA 125, had AUCs of 0.964 and 0.961, respectively, which was similar to applying the ADNEX model in all patients.

CONCLUSIONS

The IOTA methods showed good-to-excellent performance in the Portuguese population, outperforming RMI. The ADNEX model was superior to other methods in terms of accuracy, but interpretation of its ability to distinguish between malignant subtypes was limited by sample size and large differences in the prevalence of tumor subtypes. The IOTA MBDs are reliable in identifying benign disease. The two-step strategy comprising application of MBDs followed by the ADNEX model if MBDs are not applicable, is suitable for daily clinical practice, circumventing the need to calculate the risk of malignancy in all patients. © 2024 International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

Validation of ADNEX and IOTA two-step strategy and estimation of risk of complications during follow-up of adnexal masses in low-risk population

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the ability of the Assessment of Different NEoplasias in the adneXa (ADNEX) model and the International Ovarian Tumour Analysis (IOTA) two-step strategy to predict malignancy in adnexal masses detected in an outpatient low-risk setting, and to estimate the risk of complications in masses with benign ultrasound morphology managed using clinical and ultrasound follow-up.

METHODS

This single-center study was performed at Hospital Universitari Dexeus, Barcelona, Spain, using interim data from the ongoing prospective observational IOTA Phase-5 (IOTA5) study. The primary aim of the IOTA5 study is to describe the cumulative incidence of complications during follow-up of adnexal masses classified as benign on ultrasound examination. Consecutive patients with an adnexal mass detected between June 2012 and September 2016 in a private center offering screening for gynecological cancer were included and followed up until February 2020. Tumors were classified as benign or malignant based on histology (if patients underwent surgery) or the outcome of clinical and ultrasound follow-up at 12 (range, 10-14) months. Multiple imputation was used when outcomes were uncertain. The ability of the ADNEX model without CA125 and of the IOTA two-step strategy to distinguish benign from malignant masses was evaluated retrospectively using the prospectively collected data. We assessed performance with regard to discrimination (area under the receiver-operating-characteristics curve (AUC)), calibration, classification (sensitivity and specificity) and clinical utility (Net Benefit). In the group of patients with a mass judged to be benign who were selected for conservative management, we evaluated the occurrence of spontaneous resolution or any mass complication during the first 5 years of follow-up by assessing the cumulative incidence of malignancy, torsion, cyst rupture and minor mass complications (inflammation, infection or adhesions) and the time to occurrence of an event.

RESULTS

A total of 2654 patients were recruited to the study. After application of exclusion criteria, 2039 patients with a newly detected mass were included for the model validation. Of those, 1684 (83%) masses were benign, 49 (2%) masses were malignant and, for 306 (15%) masses, the outcome was uncertain and therefore imputed. The AUC was 0.95 (95% CI, 0.89-0.98) for ADNEX without CA125 and 0.94 (95% CI, 0.88-0.97) for the two-step strategy. Calibration performance could not be meaningfully interpreted because the small number of malignancies resulted in very wide confidence intervals. The two-step strategy had better clinical utility than did the ADNEX model at malignancy risk thresholds < 3%. There were 1472 (72%) patients whose mass was judged to be benign based on pattern recognition by an experienced ultrasound examiner and were managed with clinical and ultrasound follow-up. In this group, the 5-year cumulative incidence was 66% (95% CI, 63-69%) for spontaneous resolution of the mass, 0% (95% CI, 0-0.2%) for torsion, 0.1% (95% CI, < 0.1-0.4%) for cyst rupture, 0.2% (95% CI, 0.1-0.6%) for a borderline tumor and 0.2% (95% CI, 0.1-0.6%) for invasive malignancy.

CONCLUSIONS

The ADNEX model and IOTA two-step strategy performed well to distinguish benign from malignant adnexal masses detected in a low-risk population. Conservative management is safe for masses with a benign ultrasound appearance in this population. © 2024 International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

Validation of the IOTA ADNEX Model Among Japanese Women Performed by Gynecology Trainees and Ultrasound Specialists: A Retrospective Diagnostic Accuracy Study

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to validate the diagnostic accuracy of the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis (IOTA) Assessment of Different NEoplasias in the adneXa (ADNEX) model in Japanese women, population with a distinct adnexal mass distribution compared with European women, and to evaluate the model's utility by gynecology trainees and ultrasound specialists.

METHODS

This single-center, retrospective study analyzed ultrasound data from January 2017 to March 2020 of 206 women with adnexal masses. Patients who underwent ultrasonography and serum CA-125 measurement and received postsurgery histological diagnosis were included. The ADNEX model's diagnostic performance was evaluated by two trainees and two specialists using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and measures of accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values for overall performance and each examiner.

RESULTS

Of the 206 included Japanese women, the prevalence of malignancy was 30.1%, including borderline cases. The overall AUC for distinguishing malignancy was 0.848 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.817-0.880). The AUC for each examiner ranged from 0.791 to 0.898, with Specialist 2 showing the highest accuracy and sensitivity varying between 0.677 and 0.839. A moderate degree of agreement was noted among the four examiners (Fleiss' kappa was 0.586). The performance of trainees and specialists differed significantly in evaluating the solid tissue and the papillary projections in both malignant and benign groups (P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

The IOTA ADNEX model effectively differentiates benign and malignant adnexal masses in Japanese women. Although the accuracy matched up moderately among the four examiners, better accuracy is expected with training in evaluating solid tissue and papillary projections.

[Applicability of the Adnex score in predicting the malignancy of ovarian cysts]

OBJECTIVE

Ovarian cancer screening is a difficult problem due to the anatomy of the ovaries. Only histology allows a definite diagnosis. Our objective was to study the contribution of the Adnex score in the histological characterization of adnexal images for adequate management.

METHODS

It was a retrospective, mono-center, descriptive and analytical. Sixty-five patients were included, those operated for an ovarian cyst and meeting the Adnex criteria: clinical, ultrasound and laboratory.

RESULTS

The mean age of the patients was 38.6 years. They were nulliparous in 43 % of cases, and only four had a history of operation on ovarian cyst. Abdominal pelvic pain was the most frequent reason for consultation in 48 % of cases. An abdominopelvic mass was found on abdominal examination in 11 % of cases. Pelvic ultrasound made it possible to objectify the presence of an ovarian mass in all cases, with an average size of 79.66mm and a reassuring appearance in 66 % of cases. The calculation of the Adnex score was done in all patients preoperatively, for a 10 % cut-off, the model showed an 86 % chance of benignity for tumors proven to be histologically benign. The main route of entry was laparoscopy, in 61 % of cases. The treatment was in most cases conservative consisting essentially of a cystectomy.

CONCLUSION

The Adnex score discriminated well between benign and malignant masses, allowing for a better diagnosis preoperatively. It thus deserves its applicability in the clinical setting.

Comparison of the ADNEX and ROMA risk prediction models for the diagnosis of ovarian cancer: a multicentre external validation in patients who underwent surgery

BACKGROUND

Several diagnostic prediction models to help clinicians discriminate between benign and malignant adnexal masses are available. This study is a head-to-head comparison of the performance of the Assessment of Different NEoplasias in the adneXa (ADNEX) model with that of the Risk of Ovarian Malignancy Algorithm (ROMA).

METHODS

This is a retrospective study based on prospectively included consecutive women with an adnexal tumour scheduled for surgery at five oncology centres and one non-oncology centre in four countries between 2015 and 2019. The reference standard was histology. Model performance for ADNEX and ROMA was evaluated regarding discrimination, calibration, and clinical utility.

RESULTS

The primary analysis included 894 patients, of whom 434 (49%) had a malignant tumour. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was 0.92 (95% CI 0.88-0.95) for ADNEX with CA125, 0.90 (0.84-0.94) for ADNEX without CA125, and 0.85 (0.80-0.89) for ROMA. ROMA, and to a lesser extent ADNEX, underestimated the risk of malignancy. Clinical utility was highest for ADNEX. ROMA had no clinical utility at decision thresholds <27%.

CONCLUSIONS

ADNEX had better ability to discriminate between benign and malignant adnexal tumours and higher clinical utility than ROMA.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

clinicaltrials.gov NCT01698632 and NCT02847832.

ADNEX risk prediction model for diagnosis of ovarian cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis of external validation studies

Objectives

To conduct a systematic review of studies externally validating the ADNEX (Assessment of Different Neoplasias in the adnexa) model for diagnosis of ovarian cancer and to present a meta-analysis of its performance.

Design

Systematic review and meta-analysis of external validation studies.

Data sources

Medline, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, and Europe PMC, from 15 October 2014 to 15 May 2023.

Eligibility criteria for selecting studies

All external validation studies of the performance of ADNEX, with any study design and any study population of patients with an adnexal mass. Two independent reviewers extracted the data. Disagreements were resolved by discussion. Reporting quality of the studies was scored with the TRIPOD (Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis) reporting guideline, and methodological conduct and risk of bias with PROBAST (Prediction model Risk Of Bias Assessment Tool). Random effects meta-analysis of the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), sensitivity and specificity at the 10% risk of malignancy threshold, and net benefit and relative utility at the 10% risk of malignancy threshold were performed.

Results

47 studies (17 007 tumours) were included, with a median study sample size of 261 (range 24-4905). On average, 61% of TRIPOD items were reported. Handling of missing data, justification of sample size, and model calibration were rarely described. 91% of validations were at high risk of bias, mainly because of the unexplained exclusion of incomplete cases, small sample size, or no assessment of calibration. The summary AUC to distinguish benign from malignant tumours in patients who underwent surgery was 0.93 (95% confidence interval 0.92 to 0.94, 95% prediction interval 0.85 to 0.98) for ADNEX with the serum biomarker, cancer antigen 125 (CA125), as a predictor (9202 tumours, 43 centres, 18 countries, and 21 studies) and 0.93 (95% confidence interval 0.91 to 0.94, 95% prediction interval 0.85 to 0.98) for ADNEX without CA125 (6309 tumours, 31 centres, 13 countries, and 12 studies). The estimated probability that the model has use clinically in a new centre was 95% (with CA125) and 91% (without CA125). When restricting analysis to studies with a low risk of bias, summary AUC values were 0.93 (with CA125) and 0.91 (without CA125), and estimated probabilities that the model has use clinically were 89% (with CA125) and 87% (without CA125).

Conclusions

The results of the meta-analysis indicated that ADNEX performed well in distinguishing between benign and malignant tumours in populations from different countries and settings, regardless of whether the serum biomarker, CA125, was used as a predictor. A key limitation was that calibration was rarely assessed.

Systematic review registration

PROSPERO CRD42022373182.

Artificial Intelligence in Ultrasound Diagnoses of Ovarian Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Ovarian cancer is the sixth most common malignancy, with a 35% survival rate across all stages at 10 years. Ultrasound is widely used for ovarian tumour diagnosis, and accurate pre-operative diagnosis is essential for appropriate patient management. Artificial intelligence is an emerging field within gynaecology and has been shown to aid in the ultrasound diagnosis of ovarian cancers. For this study, Embase and MEDLINE databases were searched, and all original clinical studies that used artificial intelligence in ultrasound examinations for the diagnosis of ovarian malignancies were screened. Studies using histopathological findings as the standard were included. The diagnostic performance of each study was analysed, and all the diagnostic performances were pooled and assessed. The initial search identified 3726 papers, of which 63 were suitable for abstract screening. Fourteen studies that used artificial intelligence in ultrasound diagnoses of ovarian malignancies and had histopathological findings as a standard were included in the final analysis, each of which had different sample sizes and used different methods; these studies examined a combined total of 15,358 ultrasound images. The overall sensitivity was 81% (95% CI, 0.80-0.82), and specificity was 92% (95% CI, 0.92-0.93), indicating that artificial intelligence demonstrates good performance in ultrasound diagnoses of ovarian cancer. Further prospective work is required to further validate AI for its use in clinical practice.

Application of O-RADS US combined with MV-Flow to diagnose ovarian-adnexal tumors

PURPOSE

This study aimed to explore the application of Ovarian-Adnexal Reporting and Data System Ultrasound (O-RADS US) combined with MV-Flow (Samsung Medison Co., Ltd.) to diagnose ovarian-adnexal masses.

METHODS

A total of 112 ovarian-adnexal masses (81 benign and 31 malignant) from 105 consecutive patients were analyzed. The O-RADS US and vascular index from MV-Flow (VIMV) were measured and compared with the reference standard. O-RADS US and MV-Flow were tested for consistency.

RESULTS

Receiver operating characteristic curves were drawn for O-RADS US, MV-Flow, and their combination. The combined methods had the largest area under the curve (0.955), followed by O-RADS US (0.929) and MV-Flow (0.923). A mass was considered malignant when the O-RADS US classification was 5 and VIMV was ≥7.15. With this definition, MV-Flow had the highest sensitivity (87.10%), with consistent findings for the combined diagnostic methods and O-RADS US (83.87%). The specificity of the combined diagnostic methods (93.83%) was higher than that of MV-Flow (91.36%). O-RADS US had the lowest specificity (90.12%). The combined diagnostic methods had the highest coincidence rate (91.07%), and MV-Flow (90.18%) had a significantly higher coincidence rate than O-RADS US (88.39%). Both O-RADS US and MV-Flow showed good consistency among different physicians (former kappa, 0.974; latter intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC], 0.986). MV-Flow had a high consistency for the same physician (ICC, 1).

CONCLUSION

O-RADS US and MV-Flow exhibited good diagnostic efficacy, and their combined diagnostic efficacy was higher than that of each individually. O-RADS US and MV-Flow can improve the diagnosis of benign and malignant ovarian-adnexal masses.

Current and Emerging Strategies for Tubo-Ovarian Cancer Diagnostics

Tubo-ovarian cancer is the most lethal gynaecological cancer. More than 75% of patients are diagnosed at an advanced stage, which is associated with poorer overall survival. Symptoms at presentation are vague and non-specific, contributing to late diagnosis. Multimodal risk models have improved the diagnostic accuracy of adnexal mass assessment based on patient risk factors, coupled with findings on imaging and serum-based biomarker tests. Newly developed ultrasonographic assessment algorithms have standardised documentation and enable stratification of care between local hospitals and cancer centres. So far, no screening test has proven to reduce ovarian cancer mortality in the general population. This review is an update on the evidence behind ovarian cancer diagnostic strategies.

Simple rules, O-RADS, ADNEX and SRR model: Single oncologic center validation of diagnostic predictive models alone and combined (two-step strategy) to estimate the risk of malignancy in adnexal masses and ovarian tumors

OBJECTIVE

To compare performance of Assessment of Different NEoplasias in the adneXa (ADNEX model), Ovarian-Adnexal Reporting and Data System (O-RADS), Simple Rules Risk (SRR) assessment and the two-step strategy based on the application of Simple Rules (SR) followed by SRR and SR followed by ADNEX in the pre-operative discrimination between benign and malignant adnexal masses (AMs).

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective study from January-2018 to December-2021 in which consecutive patients with at AMs were recruited. Accuracy metrics included sensitivity (SE) and specificity (SP) with their 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for ADNEX, O-RADS and SRR. When SR was inconclusive a "two-step strategy" was adopted applying SR + ADNEX model and SR + SRR assessment.

RESULTS

A total of 514 women were included, 400 (77.8%) had a benign ovarian tumor and 114 (22.2%) had a malignant tumor. At a threshold malignancy risk of >10%, the SE and SP of ADNEX model, O-RADS and SRR were: 0.92 (95% CI, 0.86-0.96) and 0.88 (95% CI, 0.85-0.91); 0.93 (95% CI, 0.87-0.97) and 0.89 (95% CI, 0.96-0.92); 0.88 (95% CI, 0.80-0.93) and 0.84 (95% CI, 0.80-0.87), respectively. When we applied SR, 109 (21.2%) cases resulted inconclusive. The SE and SP of two-step strategy SR + SRR assessment and SR + ADNEX model were 0.88 (95% CI, 0.80-0.93) and 0.92 (95% CI, 0.89-0.94), SR + ADNEX model 0.90 (95% CI, 0.83-0.95) and 0.93 (95% CI, 0.90-0.96), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

O-RADS presented the highest SE, similar to ADNEX model and SR + ADNEX model. However, the SR + ADNEX model presented the higher performance accuracy with the higher SP and PPV. This two-step strategy, SR and ADNEX model applicated to inconclusive SR, is convenient for clinical evaluation.

Subjective assessment and IOTA ADNEX model in evaluation of adnexal masses in patients with history of breast cancer

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the performance of subjective assessment and the Assessment of Different NEoplasias in the adneXa (ADNEX) model in discriminating between benign and malignant adnexal tumors and between metastatic and primary adnexal tumors in patients with a personal history of breast cancer.

METHODS

This was a retrospective single-center study including patients with a history of breast cancer who underwent surgery for an adnexal mass between 2013 and 2020. All patients had been examined with transvaginal or transrectal ultrasound using a standardized examination technique and all ultrasound reports had been stored and were retrieved for the purposes of this study. The specific diagnosis suggested by the original ultrasound examiner in the retrieved report was analyzed. For each mass, the ADNEX model risks were calculated prospectively and the highest relative risk was used to categorize each into one of five categories (benign, borderline, primary Stage I, primary Stages II-IV or metastatic ovarian cancer) for analysis of the ADNEX model in predicting the specific tumor type. The performance of subjective assessment and the ADNEX model in discriminating between benign and malignant adnexal tumors and between primary and metastatic adnexal tumors was evaluated, using final histology as the reference standard.

RESULTS

Included in the study were 202 women with a history of breast cancer who underwent surgery for an adnexal mass. At histology, 93/202 (46.0%) masses were benign, 76/202 (37.6%) were primary malignancies (four borderline and 72 invasive tumors) and 33/202 (16.3%) were metastases. The original ultrasound examiner classified correctly 79/93 (84.9%) benign adnexal masses, 72/76 (94.7%) primary adnexal malignancies and 30/33 (90.9%) metastatic tumors. Subjective ultrasound evaluation had a sensitivity of 93.6%, specificity of 84.9% and accuracy of 89.6%, while the ADNEX model had higher sensitivity (98.2%) but lower specificity (78.5%), with similar accuracy (89.1%), in discriminating between benign and malignant ovarian masses. Subjective evaluation had a sensitivity of 51.5%, specificity of 88.8% and accuracy of 82.7% in distinguishing metastatic and primary tumors (including benign, borderline and invasive tumors), and the ADNEX model had a sensitivity of 63.6%, specificity of 84.6% and similar accuracy (81.2%).

CONCLUSIONS

The performance of subjective assessment and the ADNEX model in discriminating between benign and malignant adnexal masses in this series of patients with history of breast cancer was relatively similar. Both subjective assessment and the ADNEX model demonstrated good accuracy and specificity in discriminating between metastatic and primary tumors, but the sensitivity was low. © 2023 International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

Development and External Validation of Partial Proportional Odds Risk Prediction Models for Cancer Stage at Diagnosis among Males and Females in Canada

Risk prediction models for cancer stage at diagnosis may identify individuals at higher risk of late-stage cancer diagnoses. Partial proportional odds risk prediction models for cancer stage at diagnosis for males and females were developed using data from Alberta's Tomorrow Project (ATP). Prediction models were validated on the British Columbia Generations Project (BCGP) cohort using discrimination and calibration measures. Among ATP males, older age at diagnosis was associated with an earlier stage at diagnosis, while full- or part-time employment, prostate-specific antigen testing, and former/current smoking were associated with a later stage at diagnosis. Among ATP females, mammogram and sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy were associated with an earlier stage at diagnosis, while older age at diagnosis, number of pregnancies, and hysterectomy were associated with a later stage at diagnosis. On external validation, discrimination results were poor for both males and females while calibration results indicated that the models did not over- or under-fit to derivation data or over- or under-predict risk. Multiple factors associated with cancer stage at diagnosis were identified among ATP participants. While the prediction model calibration was acceptable, discrimination was poor when applied to BCGP data. Updating our models with additional predictors may help improve predictive performance.

Diagnostic Performance of Ultrasonography-Based Risk Models in Differentiating Between Benign and Malignant Ovarian Tumors in a US Cohort

Importance

Ultrasonography-based risk models can help nonexpert clinicians evaluate adnexal lesions and reduce surgical interventions for benign tumors. Yet, these models have limited uptake in the US, and studies comparing their diagnostic accuracy are lacking.

Objective

To evaluate, in a US cohort, the diagnostic performance of 3 ultrasonography-based risk models for differentiating between benign and malignant adnexal lesions: International Ovarian Tumor Analysis (IOTA) Simple Rules with inconclusive cases reclassified as malignant or reevaluated by an expert, IOTA Assessment of Different Neoplasias in the Adnexa (ADNEX), and Ovarian-Adnexal Reporting and Data System (O-RADS).

Design, Setting, and Participants

This retrospective diagnostic study was conducted at a single US academic medical center and included consecutive patients aged 18 to 89 years with adnexal masses that were managed surgically or conservatively between January 2017 and October 2022.

Exposure

Evaluation of adnexal lesions using the Simple Rules, ADNEX, and O-RADS.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The main outcome was diagnostic performance, including area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC), sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and positive and negative likelihood ratios. Surgery or follow-up were reference standards. Secondary analyses evaluated the models' performances stratified by menopause status and race.

Results

The cohort included 511 female patients with a 15.9% malignant tumor prevalence (81 patients). Mean (SD) ages of patients with benign and malignant adnexal lesions were 44.1 (14.4) and 52.5 (15.2) years, respectively, and 200 (39.1%) were postmenopausal. In the ROC analysis, the AUCs for discriminative performance of the ADNEX and O-RADS models were 0.96 (95% CI, 0.93-0.98) and 0.92 (95% CI, 0.90-0.95), respectively. After converting the ADNEX continuous individualized risk into the discrete ordinal categories of O-RADS, the ADNEX performance was reduced to an AUC of 0.93 (95% CI, 0.90-0.96), which was similar to that for O-RADS. The Simple Rules combined with expert reevaluation had 93.8% sensitivity (95% CI, 86.2%-98.0%) and 91.9% specificity (95% CI, 88.9%-94.3%), and the Simple Rules combined with malignant classification had 93.8% sensitivity (95% CI, 86.2%-98.0%) and 88.1% specificity (95% CI, 84.7%-91.0%). At a 10% risk threshold, ADNEX had 91.4% sensitivity (95% CI, 83.0%-96.5%) and 86.3% specificity (95% CI, 82.7%-89.4%) and O-RADS had 98.8% sensitivity (95% CI, 93.3%-100%) and 74.4% specificity (95% CI, 70.0%-78.5%). The specificities of all models were significantly lower in the postmenopausal group. Subgroup analysis revealed high performances independent of race.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this diagnostic study of a US cohort, the Simple Rules, ADNEX, and O-RADS models performed well in differentiating between benign and malignant adnexal lesions; this outcome has been previously reported primarily in European populations. Risk stratification models can lead to more accurate and consistent evaluations of adnexal masses, especially when used by nonexpert clinicians, and may reduce unnecessary surgeries.

Benign descriptors and ADNEX in two-step strategy to estimate risk of malignancy in ovarian tumors: retrospective validation in IOTA5 multicenter cohort

OBJECTIVE

Previous work has suggested that the ultrasound-based benign simple descriptors (BDs) can reliably exclude malignancy in a large proportion of women presenting with an adnexal mass. This study aimed to validate a modified version of the BDs and to validate a two-step strategy to estimate the risk of malignancy, in which the modified BDs are followed by the Assessment of Different NEoplasias in the adneXa (ADNEX) model if modified BDs do not apply.

METHODS

This was a retrospective analysis using data from the 2-year interim analysis of the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis (IOTA) Phase-5 study, in which consecutive patients with at least one adnexal mass were recruited irrespective of subsequent management (conservative or surgery). The main outcome was classification of tumors as benign or malignant, based on histology or on clinical and ultrasound information during 1 year of follow-up. Multiple imputation was used when outcome based on follow-up was uncertain according to predefined criteria.

RESULTS

A total of 8519 patients were recruited at 36 centers between 2012 and 2015. We excluded patients who were already in follow-up at recruitment and all patients from 19 centers that did not fulfil our criteria for good-quality surgical and follow-up data, leaving 4905 patients across 17 centers for statistical analysis. Overall, 3441 (70%) tumors were benign, 978 (20%) malignant and 486 (10%) uncertain. The modified BDs were applicable in 1798/4905 (37%) tumors, of which 1786 (99.3%) were benign. The two-step strategy based on ADNEX without CA125 had an area under the receiver-operating-characteristics curve (AUC) of 0.94 (95% CI, 0.92-0.96). The risk of malignancy was slightly underestimated, but calibration varied between centers. A sensitivity analysis in which we expanded the definition of uncertain outcome resulted in 1419 (29%) tumors with uncertain outcome and an AUC of the two-step strategy without CA125 of 0.93 (95% CI, 0.91-0.95).

CONCLUSION

A large proportion of adnexal masses can be classified as benign by the modified BDs. For the remaining masses, the ADNEX model can be used to estimate the risk of malignancy. This two-step strategy is convenient for clinical use. © 2022 The Authors. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

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.

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.

Psychological impact of referral to an oncology hospital on patients with an ovarian mass

OBJECTIVES

In patients with an ovarian mass, a risk of malignancy assessment is used to decide whether referral to an oncology hospital is indicated. Risk assessment strategies do not perform optimally, resulting in either referral of patients with a benign mass or patients with a malignant mass not being referred. This process may affect the psychological well-being of patients. We evaluated cancer-specific distress during work-up for an ovarian mass, and patients' perceptions during work-up, referral, and treatment.

METHODS

Patients with an ovarian mass scheduled for surgery were enrolled. Using questionnaires we measured (1) cancer-specific distress using the cancer worry scale, (2) patients' preferences regarding referral (evaluated pre-operatively), and (3) patients' experiences with work-up and treatment (evaluated post-operatively). A cancer worry scale score of ≥14 was considered as clinically significant cancer-specific distress.

RESULTS

A total of 417 patients were included, of whom 220 (53%) were treated at a general hospital and 197 (47%) at an oncology hospital. Overall, 57% had a cancer worry scale score of ≥14 and this was higher in referred patients (69%) than in patients treated at a general hospital (43%). 53% of the patients stated that the cancer risk should not be higher than 25% to undergo surgery at a general hospital. 96% of all patients were satisfied with the overall work-up and treatment. No difference in satisfaction was observed between patients correctly (not) referred and patients incorrectly (not) referred.

CONCLUSIONS

Relatively many patients with an ovarian mass experienced high cancer-specific distress during work-up. Nevertheless, patients were satisfied with the treatment, regardless of the final diagnosis and the location of treatment. Moreover, patients preferred to be referred even if there was only a relatively low probability of having ovarian cancer. Patients' preferences should be taken into account when deciding on optimal cut-offs for risk assessment strategies.

Comparison of the O-RADS and ADNEX models regarding malignancy rate and validity in evaluating adnexal lesions

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to compare the ability of the O-RADS and ADNEX models to classify benign or malignant adnexal lesions.

METHODS

This retrospective single-center study included women who underwent surgery for adnexal lesions. Two gynecologists independently categorized the adnexal lesions according to the O-RADS and ADNEX models. Four additional readers were included to validate the new quick-access O-RADS flowchart.

RESULTS

Among the 322 patients included in this study, 264 (82.0%) had a benign diagnosis, and 58 (18.0%) had a malignant diagnosis. The malignant rates of O-RADS 2, O-RADS 3, O-RADS 4, and O-RADS 5 were 0%, 3.0%, 37.7%, and 78.9%, respectively. The AUC of the O-RADS in the 322 patients was 0.93. On comparing the O-RADS and ADNEX models in the remaining 281 patients, the AUCs of the O-RADS, ADNEX model with CA125, and ADNEX model without CA125 were 0.92, 0.95, and 0.94, respectively. When setting a uniform cutoff of ≥ 10% (≥ O-RADS 4) to predict malignancy, the O-RADS had higher sensitivity than the ADNEX model (96.6% vs. 91.4%), and relatively similar specificity. In addition, the readers with the quick-access flowchart spent less time categorizing O-RADS than the readers with only the original O-RADS table (mean analysis time: 99 min 15 s vs. 111 min 55 s).

CONCLUSIONS

The O-RADS classification of the adnexal lesions as benign or malignant was comparable to that of the ADNEX model and had higher sensitivity at the 10% cutoff value. A quick-access O-RADS flowchart was helpful in O-RADS categorization and might shorten the analysis time.

KEY POINTS

• Both O-RADS and ADNEX models had good diagnostic performance in distinguishing adnexal malignancy, and O-RADS had higher sensitivity than ADNEX model in uniform 10% cutoff to predict malignancy. • Quick-access O-RADS flowchart was developed to help review O-RADS classification and might help reduce the analysis time.

Performance of the IOTA ADNEX model combined with HE4 for identifying early-stage ovarian cancer

Objective

This work was designed to investigate the performance of the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis (IOTA) ADNEX (Assessment of Different NEoplasias in the adneXa) model combined with human epithelial protein 4 (HE4) for early ovarian cancer (OC) detection.

Methods

A total of 376 women who were hospitalized and operated on in Women and Children’s Hospital of Chongqing Medical University were selected. Ultrasonographic images, cancer antigen-125 (CA 125) levels, and HE4 levels were obtained. All cases were analyzed and the histopathological diagnosis serves as the reference standard. Based on the IOTA ADNEX model post-processing software, the risk prediction value was calculated. We analyzed receiver operating characteristic curves to determine whether the IOTA ADNEX model alone or combined with HE4 provided better diagnostic accuracy.

Results

The area under the curve (AUC) of the ADNEX model alone or combined with HE4 in predicting benign and malignant ovarian tumors was 0.914 (95% CI, 0.881–0.941) and 0.916 (95% CI, 0.883–0.942), respectively. With the cutoff risk of 10%, the ADNEX model had a sensitivity of 0.93 (95% CI, 0.87–0.97) and a specificity of 0.73 (95% CI, 0.67–0.78), while combined with HE4, it had a sensitivity of 0.90 (95% CI, 0.84–0.95) and a specificity of 0.81 (95% CI, 0.76–0.86). The IOTA ADNEX model combined with HE4 was better at improving the accuracy of the differential diagnosis between different OCs than the IOTA ADNEX model alone. A significant difference was found in separating borderline masses from Stage II–IV OC (p = 0.0257).

Conclusions

A combination of the IOTA ADNEX model and HE4 can improve the specificity of diagnosis of ovarian benign and malignant tumors and increase the sensitivity and effectiveness of the differential diagnosis of Stage II–IV OC and borderline tumors.

External Validation of the Assessment of Different NEoplasias in the adneXa Model Performance in Evaluating the Risk of Ovarian Carcinoma Before Surgery in China: A Tertiary Center Study

OBJECTIVES

The Assessment of Different NEoplasias in the adneXa (ADNEX) model was developed by the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis group to assess the risk of an ovarian mass being malignant. This study aimed to externally validate the ADNEX model performance in a tertiary center in China.

METHODS

This retrospective, single-center university hospital study assessed the model diagnostic accuracy. All patients were examined by transvaginal ultrasonography, and serum CA125 levels were measured. Moreover, clinicopathological information was collected. The diagnostic performance of the ADNEX model was calculated with and without CA125 as a predictor.

RESULTS

We retrieved data of 335 patients, of which 53 were excluded based on the exclusion criteria. Of the included 282 patients, 178 (63.1%) had benign tumors, and 104 (36.9%) had malignant tumors. When CA125 was factored in, the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) for the distinction between benign and malignant tumors was 0.93 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.90-0.96), whereas it was 0.91 (95% CI, 0.88-0.95) without CA125. The concordance between the predicted risk of malignancy and the proportion of observed malignancies was well demonstrated by the calibration plots.

CONCLUSIONS

The proper performance of the ADNEX model was verified externally in a tertiary center in China, showing a good distinction between tumour subtypes. Our findings suggest the ADNEX model is a valuable tool in clinical practice and may help in managing patients with adnexal masses.

Diagnostic Accuracies of the Ultrasound and Magnetic Resonance Imaging ADNEX Scoring Systems For Ovarian Adnexal Mass: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

We conducted a meta-analysis of IOTA (international ovarian tumor analysis) ADNEX (Assessment of Different NEoplasias in the adneXa) as ultrasound system and MRI (magnetic resonance imaging) ADNEX scoring systems as MR system to assess their diagnostic test accuracy for differentiating benign from malignant adnexal masses of the ovary. We performed an electronic search for relevant publications in the English language up to February 2021 using PubMed, CENTRAL (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials), Web of Science, and Google scholar databases and search engines. We computed the pooled sensitivity, pooled specificity, and summary receiver operating characteristics curve (SROC) using the statistical software STATA (Version 13, College Station, TX, StataCorp LP). Based on 11 studies using IOTA-ADNEX, we observed pooled sensitivity, specificity, area under curve, and diagnostic odds ratio were 96% (95% CI, 94% to 97%), 79% (95% CI, 70% to 86 %), 97% (95% CI, 95% to 98%), and 88 (95% CI, 43 to 180). Based on five studies using MR-ADNEX scoring system the pooled sensitivity, specificity, area under curve and diagnostic odds ratio were 91 % (95% CI, 87% to 94 %), 95% (95% CI, 92% to 97 %), 98% (95% CI, 96% to 99%), and 189 (95% CI, 90 to 396) respectively. Our meta-analysis results demonstrate that the MR-ADNEX scoring system had higher specificity however bit lower sensitivity compared to the IOTA-ADNEX scoring system for discriminating benign from malignant ovarian tumors.

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.

Two-Step Strategy for Optimizing the Preoperative Classification of Adnexal Masses in a University Hospital, Using International Ovarian Tumor Analysis Models: Simple Rules and Assessment of Different NEoplasias in the adneXa Model

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the performance of a two-step strategy compared with the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis (IOTA) - Assessment of Different NEoplasias in the adneXa (ADNEX) model for preoperative classification of adnexal masses.

METHODS

An ambispective diagnostic accuracy study based on ultrasound data collected at one university hospital between 2012 and 2018. Two ultrasonographers classified the adnexal masses using IOTA Simple Rules (first step). Not classifiable masses were evaluated using the IOTA ADNEX model (second step). Also, all masses were classified using the IOTA ADNEX model. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV), positive likelihood ratio (LR+) and negative likelihood ratio (LR-), and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve were estimated. A P value of <.05 was used to determine statistical significance.

RESULTS

The study included 548 patients and 606 masses. Patients' median age was 41 years with an interquartile range between 32 and 51 years. In the first step, 89 (14%) masses were not classifiable. In the second step, 55 (61.8%) masses were classified as malignant. Furthermore, for the totality of 606 masses, the IOTA ADNEX model estimated the probability that 126 (20.8%) masses were malignant. The two-step strategy had a sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, LR+, LR-, and ROC curve of 86.8%, 91.01%, 51.9%, 98.4%, 9.7, 0.1, and 0.889, respectively; compared to IOTA ADNEX model that had values of 91.8%, 87.16%, 44.4%, 99%, 7.1, 0.09, and 0.895, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The two-step strategy shows a similar diagnostic performance when compared to the IOTA ADNEX model. The IOTA ADNEX model involves only one step and can be more practical, and thus would be recommended to use.

Comparison of HE4, CA125, ROMA and CPH-I for Preoperative Assessment of Adnexal Tumors

(1) OBJECTIVE: To assess the performance of CA125, HE4, ROMA index and CPH-I index to preoperatively identify epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) or metastatic cancer in the ovary (MCO). (2) METHODS: single center retrospective study, including women with a diagnosis of adnexal mass. We obtained the AUC, sensitivity, specificity and predictive values were of HE4, CA125, ROMA and CPH-I for the diagnosis of EOC and MCO. Subgroup analysis for women harboring adnexal masses with inconclusive diagnosis of malignancy by ultrasound features and Stage I EOC was performed. (3) RESULTS: 1071 patients were included, 852 (79.6%) presented benign/borderline tumors and 219 (20.4%) presented EOC/MCO. AUC for HE4 was higher than for CA125 (0.91 vs. 0.87). No differences were seen between AUC of ROMA and CPH-I, but they were both higher than HE4 AUC. None of the tumor markers alone achieved a sensitivity of 90%; HE4 was highly specific (93.5%). ROMA showed a sensitivity and specificity of 91.1% and 84.6% respectively, while CPH-I showed a sensitivity of 91.1% with 79.2% specificity. For patients with inconclusive diagnosis of malignancy by ultrasound features and with Stage I EOC, ROMA showed the best diagnostic performance (4) CONCLUSIONS: ROMA and CPH-I perform better than tumor markers alone to identify patients harboring EOC or MCO. They can be helpful to assess the risk of malignancy of adnexal masses, especially in cases where ultrasonographic diagnosis is challenging (stage I EOC, inconclusive diagnosis of malignancy by ultrasound features).

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.

Evaluation of the Diagnostic Value of the Ultrasound ADNEX Model for Benign and Malignant Ovarian Tumors

Objective

To investigate the diagnostic performance of the ADNEX model in the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis diagnostic models for ovarian tumors and further explore its application value in the staging of ovarian tumors.

Methods

A total of 224 patients who underwent ultrasound for evaluation of adnexal masses and were treated surgically owing to adnexal masses from January 2018 to June 2020 in our hospital were selected for research on the diagnostic accuracy of the ADNEX model. The clinical information and ultrasonographic findings of the patients were collected, and the pathological diagnosis was taken as the gold standard. According to the ADNEX model, the ovarian tumors were divided into five subtypes: benign and borderline, stage I, stage II–IV, and metastatic cancer. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, diagnostic odds ratio, and area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUC) of the ADNEX model were calculated.

Results

Of the 224 patients, 119 (53.1%) developed benign tumors and 105 (46.9%) had malignant tumors. When the cut-off value for malignancy risk was 10%, the ADNEX model including CA 125 achieved a sensitivity of 94.3% (95% CI: 88.0–97.9%), specificity of 74.0% (95% CI: 65.1–81.6%), positive predictive value of 76.2% (95% CI: 70.2–81.3%), negative predictive value of 93.6% (95% CI: 87.0–97.0%), diagnostic odds ratio of 45.25, and an AUC of 0.94 (95% CI: 0.90–0.97) for differentiating between benign and malignant ovarian tumors. The AUC in the model excluding CA 125 was 0.93 (95% CI: 0.89–0.96), but the difference was not statistically significant (P=0.20). The accuracy of the ADNEX model for the diagnosis of ovarian tumors of all subtypes exceeds 80% when CA 125 measurements were included in the application, but the sensitivity for diagnosing borderline, stage I, and metastatic ovarian tumors was only 60.0% (95% CI:36.1–80.9%), 28.6% (95% CI:8.4–58.1%) and 45.5% (95% CI:16.7–76.6%).

Conclusion

The ADNEX model shows good diagnostic performance in differentiating between benign and malignant ovarian tumors. The model has a certain clinical value in the diagnosis of all subtypes of ovarian tumors, but the sensitivity is unsatisfactory for the diagnosis of borderline, stage I, and metastatic ovarian tumors and needs to be verified.

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.

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.

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.

Terms, definitions and measurements to describe sonographic features of lymph nodes: consensus opinion from the Vulvar International Tumor Analysis (VITA) group

In centers with access to high-end ultrasound machines and expert sonologists, ultrasound is used to detect metastases in regional lymph nodes from melanoma, breast cancer and vulvar cancer. There is, as yet, no international consensus on ultrasound assessment of lymph nodes in any disease or medical condition. The lack of standardized ultrasound nomenclature to describe lymph nodes makes it difficult to compare results from different ultrasound studies and to find reliable ultrasound features for distinguishing non-infiltrated lymph nodes from lymph nodes infiltrated by cancer or lymphoma cells. The Vulvar International Tumor Analysis (VITA) collaborative group consists of gynecologists, gynecologic oncologists and radiologists with expertise in gynecologic cancer, particularly in the ultrasound staging and treatment of vulvar cancer. The work herein is a consensus opinion on terms, definitions and measurements which may be used to describe inguinal lymph nodes on grayscale and color/power Doppler ultrasound. The proposed nomenclature need not be limited to the description of inguinal lymph nodes as part of vulvar cancer staging; it can be used to describe peripheral lymph nodes in general, as well as non-peripheral (i.e. parietal or visceral) lymph nodes if these can be visualized clearly. The association between the ultrasound features described here and histopathological diagnosis has not yet been established. VITA terms and definitions lay the foundations for prospective studies aiming to identify ultrasound features typical of metastases and other pathology in lymph nodes and studies to elucidate the role of ultrasound in staging of vulvar and other malignancies. © 2021 International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

Preoperative Evaluation of the ADNEX Model for the Prediction of the Ovarian Cancer Risk of Adnexal Masses at Siriraj Hospital

INTRODUCTION

Distinguishing benign adnexal masses from malignant tumors plays an important role in preoperative planning and improving patients' survival rates. The International Ovarian Tumor Analysis (IOTA) group developed a model termed the Assessment of Different NEoplasias in the adneXa (ADNEX).

OBJECTIVE

Our objective was to evaluate the performance of the ADNEX model in distinguishing between benign and malignant tumors at a cutoff value of 10%.

METHODS

This was a prospective diagnostic study. 357 patients with an adnexal mass who were scheduled for surgery at Siriraj Hospital were included from May 1, 2018, to May 30, 2019. All patients were undergoing ultrasonography, and serum CA125 was measured. Data were calculated by the ADNEX model via an IOTA ADNEX calculator.

RESULTS

Of the 357 patients, 296 had benign tumors and 61 had malignant tumors. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for using the ADNEX model was 0.975 (95% confidence interval, 0.953-0.988). At a 10% cutoff, the sensitivity was 98.4% and specificity was 87.2%. The best cutoff value was at 16.6% in our population.

CONCLUSIONS

The performance of the ADNEX model in differentiating benign and malignant tumors was excellent.

Assessment of different NEoplasias in the adneXa model for differentiation of benign and malignant adnexal masses in Korean women

OBJECTIVE

Ultrasonographic differential diagnosis of ovarian tumors is important for appropriate management. We conducted study to compare the performance of the Assessment of Different NEoplasias in the adneXa (ADNEX) model with a subjective assessment (SA) in differentiating between benign and malignant adnexal masses in Korean women.

METHODS

A total of 353 patients who underwent adnexal surgery with abnormal pelvic ultrasonographic findings from August 2016 to August 2017 were included in study. The presumptive diagnosis of adnexal malignancy was determined by both SA and the ADNEX model to be >10% calculated risk of malignancy. The area under the curve (AUC) comparison between the SA and ADNEX models was performed using DeLong's method.

RESULTS

340 patients with benign tumors and 13 with malignant adnexal tumors among 292 (82.72%) premenopausal and 61 (17.28%) postmenopausal women were included. The AUCs of SA and the ADNEX model for discrimination between benign and malignant tumors were 0.79 and 0.92, respectively (P=0.10). The sensitivity and specificity of SA and the ADNEX model were 83.5% and 97.0%, and 90.0% and 82.0%, respectively. Comparison of the ADNEX model regarding menopausal status revealed that the predictability was not different. The AUCs of SA and the ADNEX model in premenopausal women were 0.74 and 0.89, respectively (P=0.12). The AUCs of SA and the ADNEX model in postmenopausal women were 0.86 and 0.94, respectively (P=0.60).

CONCLUSION

The ADNEX model offers excellent discrimination between benign and malignant ovarian tumors with similar sensitivity and specificity to SA in both premenopausal and postmenopausal Korean women.

Validation of models to diagnose ovarian cancer in patients managed surgically or conservatively: multicentre cohort study

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the performance of diagnostic prediction models for ovarian malignancy in all patients with an ovarian mass managed surgically or conservatively.

DESIGN

Multicentre cohort study.

SETTING

36 oncology referral centres (tertiary centres with a specific gynaecological oncology unit) or other types of centre.

PARTICIPANTS

Consecutive adult patients presenting with an adnexal mass between January 2012 and March 2015 and managed by surgery or follow-up.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Overall and centre specific discrimination, calibration, and clinical utility of six prediction models for ovarian malignancy (risk of malignancy index (RMI), logistic regression model 2 (LR2), simple rules, simple rules risk model (SRRisk), assessment of different neoplasias in the adnexa (ADNEX) with or without CA125). ADNEX allows the risk of malignancy to be subdivided into risks of a borderline, stage I primary, stage II-IV primary, or secondary metastatic malignancy. The outcome was based on histology if patients underwent surgery, or on results of clinical and ultrasound follow-up at 12 (±2) months. Multiple imputation was used when outcome based on follow-up was uncertain.

RESULTS

The primary analysis included 17 centres that met strict quality criteria for surgical and follow-up data (5717 of all 8519 patients). 812 patients (14%) had a mass that was already in follow-up at study recruitment, therefore 4905 patients were included in the statistical analysis. The outcome was benign in 3441 (70%) patients and malignant in 978 (20%). Uncertain outcomes (486, 10%) were most often explained by limited follow-up information. The overall area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was highest for ADNEX with CA125 (0.94, 95% confidence interval 0.92 to 0.96), ADNEX without CA125 (0.94, 0.91 to 0.95) and SRRisk (0.94, 0.91 to 0.95), and lowest for RMI (0.89, 0.85 to 0.92). Calibration varied among centres for all models, however the ADNEX models and SRRisk were the best calibrated. Calibration of the estimated risks for the tumour subtypes was good for ADNEX irrespective of whether or not CA125 was included as a predictor. Overall clinical utility (net benefit) was highest for the ADNEX models and SRRisk, and lowest for RMI. For patients who received at least one follow-up scan (n=1958), overall area under the receiver operating characteristic curve ranged from 0.76 (95% confidence interval 0.66 to 0.84) for RMI to 0.89 (0.81 to 0.94) for ADNEX with CA125.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study found the ADNEX models and SRRisk are the best models to distinguish between benign and malignant masses in all patients presenting with an adnexal mass, including those managed conservatively.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01698632.

Surgery of Benign Ovarian Masses by a Gynecological Cancer Surgeon: A Cohort Study in a Tertiary Cancer Centre

Objectives This study aimed to evaluate diagnostic performance in characterising ovarian masses by our gynaecological oncology multidisciplinary team meeting (MDM). Surgical outcome and overall impact on patients and healthcare service were also assessed. Methods This was a prospective cohort study of all women with adnexal masses presenting to the gynaecological oncology MDM at a central London tertiary cancer centre between February 2017 and February 2018. The multidisciplinary team (MDT) outcome, imaging details, subjective opinion, tumour markers, surgical details, and final histological diagnosis were collected. Diagnostic performance was also determined. Results There were 200 eligible patients in the study period. MDM imaging review demonstrated a sensitivity of 98.4% (95% CI: 94.3% to 99.8%) and a specificity of 52% (95% CI: 40.2% to 63.7%). Thirty-five cases were false positive, either presumed invasive cancers (51%) or borderline tumours (49%). The most common histological types were serous (37%) and mucinous (31%) cystadenomas. A retrospective application of the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis (IOTA) Assessment of Different NEoplasias in the adneXa (ADNEX) model suggests a potential reduction in false-positive rates (17%). Among the false-positive cases, there was no postoperative (90 days) mortality and postoperative morbidity was 14% with only grade 2 (CD2) complications according to Clavien and Dindo's CD classification. Conclusion An MDT has high sensitivity but low specificity when characterising ovarian masses referred with possible ovarian cancer to the tertiary centre. False-positive values in ovarian cancers are an important indicator of over-treatment. More research is required to assess other methods, such as the IOTA ADNEX model, to reduce the false-positive value.

Validation of IOTA-ADNEX Model in Discriminating Characteristics of Adnexal Masses: A Comparison with Subjective Assessment

(1) Background: The aim of this study is to compare the IOTA-ADNEX (international ovarian tumor analysis–assessment of different neoplasias in the adnexa) model with gynecologic experts in differentiating ovarian diseases. (2) Methods: All participants in this prospective study underwent ultrasonography (US) equipped with the IOTA-ADNEX^TM model and subjective assessment by a sonographic expert. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were also generated to compare overall accuracies. The optimal cut-off value of the ADNEX model for excluding benign diseases was calculated. (3) Results: Fifty-nine participants were eligible: 54 and 5 underwent surgery and follow-up computed tomography (CT), respectively. Benign and malignant diseases were confirmed in 49 (83.1%) and 10 (16.9%) participants, respectively. The specificity of the ADNEX model was 0.816 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.680–0.912) in all participants and 0.795 (95% CI, 0.647–0.902) in the surgical group. The area under the ROC curve of the ADNEX model (0.924) was not significantly different from that of subjective assessment (0.953 in all participants, 0.951 in the surgical group; p = 0.391 in all participants, p = 0.407 in the surgical group). The optimal cut-off point using the ADNEX model was 47.3%, with a specificity of 0.977 (95% CI: 0.880–0.999). (4) Conclusions: The IOTA-ADNEX model is equal to gynecologic US experts in excluding benign ovarian tumors. Subsequently, being familiar with this US software may help gynecologic beginners to reduce unnecessary surgery.

The ADNEX model to triage adnexal masses: An external validation study and comparison with the IOTA two-step strategy and subjective assessment by an experienced ultrasound operator

OBJECTIVES

The ADNEX (Assessment of Different NEoplasias in the adneXa) model was developed using parameters collected by experienced (level III) ultrasound examiners. Our primary aim was to externally validate the ADNEX model. Then, the discriminatory performance of ADNEX was compared with the two-step strategy and subjective assessment by an experienced ultrasound operator.

METHODS

Between February 2013 and January 2017, all patients who were scheduled for surgery for an adnexal mass at the Sant'Anna Hospital in Turin were enrolled in this study. Preoperative transvaginal sonography was performed, and the two-step strategy was applied for triage of the adnexal mass. Two ultrasound examiners, IOTA certified, applied the ADNEX model to all the collected masses based on the ultrasound reports. Finally, an experienced operator assigned the subjective assessment based on recorded ultrasound images. The discrimination and calibration performance of ADNEX were evaluated. The AUC was calculated for the basic discrimination between benign and malignant tumours. In addition, AUCs were computed for each pair of tumour types using the conditional risk method.

RESULTS

A total of 577 patients were included in the analysis: the overall prevalence of malignancy was 25 %. With ADNEX, the AUC to differentiate between benign and malignant masses was 0.9111 (95 % CI 0. 8788-0.9389). At risk cut-offs of 1%, 10 % and 30 %, sensitivities were 100 %, 89.6 % and 79.2 %, respectively, and specificities were 2.8 %, 76.2 % and 89.6 %, respectively. Discrimination between benign and stage II-IV tumours was good (AUC 0.935). The model had the most difficulties discriminating between borderline and stage I tumours (AUC 0.666), and between stages II-IV invasive and secondary metastatic tumours (AUC 0.736). The polytomous discrimination index (PDI) was 0.61 for ADNEX, whereas PDI for random performance would be 0.25. ADNEX proved to be equally or more accurate than the subjective assessment or the two-step strategy in the discrimination between benign and malignant adnexal masses.

CONCLUSIONS

the ADNEX model could probably be successfully applied when an expert examiner is not available and, therefore both a subjective assessment and the two-step strategy cannot be performed.

Performance of IOTA ADNEX model in evaluating adnexal masses in a gynecological oncology center in China

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis (IOTA) Assessment of Different NEoplasias in the adneXa (ADNEX) model in the preoperative diagnosis of adnexal masses using data from a gynecological oncology center in China.

METHODS

This was a single-center, retrospective diagnostic accuracy study based on ultrasound data collected prospectively, between May and December 2017, from 278 patients with at least one adnexal (ovarian, paraovarian or tubal) mass. Clinical and pathologic information, serum CA 125 level and ultrasonographic findings were collected. All patients underwent surgery and the histopathological diagnosis was used as reference standard. The final diagnosis was classified into five tumor types according to the ADNEX model: benign ovarian tumor, borderline ovarian tumor (BOT), Stage-I ovarian cancer (OC), Stages-II-IV OC and ovarian metastasis. Receiver-operating characteristics (ROC) curve analysis was used to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of the ADNEX model, with and without inclusion of CA 125 level in the model.

RESULTS

Of the 278 women included, 203 (73.0%) had a benign ovarian tumor and 75 (27.0%) had a malignant ovarian tumor, including 18 (6.5%) with BOT, 17 (6.1%) with Stage-I OC, 32 (11.5%) with Stages-II-IV OC and eight (2.9%) with ovarian metastasis. The performance of the IOTA ADNEX model was good for discriminating between benign and malignant tumors, with an area under the ROC curve (AUC) of 0.94 (95% CI, 0.91-0.97) when CA 125 was included in the model and AUC of 0.93 (95% CI, 0.90-0.96) without CA 125. The AUC values of the model including CA 125 ranged between 0.61 and 0.99 for distinguishing between the different types of tumor, and it showed excellent performance in discriminating between a benign ovarian tumor and Stages-II-IV OC, with an AUC of 0.99 (95% CI, 0.97-1.00). The performance of the model was less effective at distinguishing between BOT and Stage-I OC and between Stages-II-IV OC and ovarian metastasis, with AUC values of 0.61 (95% CI, 0.43-0.77) and 0.78 (95% CI, 0.62-0.90), respectively. Although inclusion of CA 125 did not alter the performance of the ADNEX model in discriminating between benign and malignant lesions (AUC of 0.94 and 0.93 with and without CA 125 level, respectively; P = 0.54), the inclusion of CA 125 in the model improved its performance in discriminating between Stage-I OC and Stages-II-IV OC (AUC increased from 0.81 to 0.92; P = 0.04) and between Stages-II-IV OC and metastatic cancer (AUC increased from 0.58 to 0.78; P = 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

The IOTA ADNEX model showed good to excellent performance in distinguishing between benign and malignant adnexal masses and between the different types of ovarian tumor in a Chinese setting. Based on our findings, the ADNEX model has high value in clinical practice and can aid in the preoperative diagnosis of patients with an adnexal mass. Copyright © 2019 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

The Abnormal Ovary: Evolving Concepts in Diagnosis and Management

Ovarian lesions are common and require a consistent approach to diagnosis and management for best patient outcomes. In the past 20 years, there has been an evolution in the approach to abnormal ovarian lesions, with increasing emphasis on reducing surgery for benign disease, standardizing terminology, assessing risk of malignancy through use of evidence-based scoring systems, and triaging suspicious abnormalities to dedicated oncology centers. This article provides an evidence-based review of how these changes in diagnosis and management of ultrasound-detected abnormal ovarian lesions have occurred. Current recommended practices are summarized. The current literature on transvaginal screening for ovarian cancer also is reviewed and summarized.

O-RADS US Risk Stratification and Management System: A Consensus Guideline from the ACR Ovarian-Adnexal Reporting and Data System Committee

The Ovarian-Adnexal Reporting and Data System (O-RADS) US risk stratification and management system is designed to provide consistent interpretations, to decrease or eliminate ambiguity in US reports resulting in a higher probability of accuracy in assigning risk of malignancy to ovarian and other adnexal masses, and to provide a management recommendation for each risk category. It was developed by an international multidisciplinary committee sponsored by the American College of Radiology and applies the standardized reporting tool for US based on the 2018 published lexicon of the O-RADS US working group. For risk stratification, the O-RADS US system recommends six categories (O-RADS 0-5), incorporating the range of normal to high risk of malignancy. This unique system represents a collaboration between the pattern-based approach commonly used in North America and the widely used, European-based, algorithmic-style International Ovarian Tumor Analysis (IOTA) Assessment of Different Neoplasias in the Adnexa model system, a risk prediction model that has undergone successful prospective and external validation. The pattern approach relies on a subgroup of the most predictive descriptors in the lexicon based on a retrospective review of evidence prospectively obtained in the IOTA phase 1-3 prospective studies and other supporting studies that assist in differentiating management schemes in a variety of almost certainly benign lesions. With O-RADS US working group consensus, guidelines for management in the different risk categories are proposed. Both systems have been stratified to reach the same risk categories and management strategies regardless of which is initially used. At this time, O-RADS US is the only lexicon and classification system that encompasses all risk categories with their associated management schemes.

Methods of Assessing Ovarian Masses: International Ovarian Tumor Analysis Approach

There are many diagnostic methods to assist clinicians in assessing adnexal masses on ultrasound. After suggesting a standardized terminology and measurement technique to evaluate adnexal masses, the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis (IOTA) group has developed different strategies such as the Simple Rules and Assessment of Different Neoplasias in the adneXa (ADNEX) model, which have been shown to outperform other available methods. Besides differentiating between benign neoplasms and malignancies, the ADNEX model can also give the predicted risk for different subtypes of malignant adnexal masses, which is clinically very relevant for guiding patient management.

Factors associated with misdiagnosis of frozen section of mucinous borderline ovarian tumor

Objective

This study was performed to investigate the diagnostic accuracy of frozen section (FS) of mucinous borderline ovarian tumors (mBOTs) and the diagnostic value of various risk factors for misdiagnosis.

Methods

Patients with either an FS or permanent pathologic diagnosis of mBOT were included. Optimum cut-off values for serum tumor markers and maximal tumor diameter were determined, and risk factors for underdiagnosis of mucinous malignant ovarian tumors (mMOTs) were evaluated. The sensitivity, specificity, Youden’s index, and diagnostic odds ratio of the risk factors were assessed to determine their diagnostic value for mMOTs.

Results

Of 121 included patients, 97 were diagnosed with mBOTs by FS. Relatively abnormal cancer antigen 125 (CA125), carbohydrate antigen 19-9 (CA19-9), and carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) levels; bilateral tumors; and specific pathological features showed significant associations with underdiagnosis of mMOTs in the univariate analysis. The presence of specific pathological features was the only significant risk factor in the multivariate analysis. The CA125, CA19-9, and CEA levels and specific pathological features demonstrated certain diagnostic value in detecting malignant cases among FS-diagnosed mBOTs.

Conclusions

In patients with FS-diagnosed mBOT, significant predictors of malignancy were relatively higher CA125, CA19-9, and CEA levels; bilateral tumors; and tumors with specific pathological features.