Diagnostic extended usefulness of RMI: comparison of four risk of malignancy index in preoperative differentiation of borderline ovarian tumors and benign ovarian tumors

Evaluation of serum CA125, HE4 and CA724 and the risk of ovarian malignancy algorithm score in the diagnosis of high-grade serous ovarian cancer

AIM

To develop a new algorithm for the detection of high-grade serous ovarian cancer (HGSOC).

METHODS

Patients diagnosed with HGSOC, borderline ovarian tumours (BOTs) or benign ovarian masses (BOMs) were enrolled between February 2019 and December 2020. Patients with BOTs or BOMs were grouped as non-HGSOC. The cases were divided randomly into a training cohort (two-thirds of cases) and a validation cohort (one-third of cases). Logistic regression was used to find risk factors for HGSOC and to create a new algorithm in the training cohort. Receiver operating characteristic curves were used to compare the diagnostic value of tumour biomarkers. Sensitivity and specificity of tumour markers and the new algorithm were calculated in the training cohort and validation cohort.

RESULTS

This study found significant differences in age; BRCA1/2 mutation status; CA125, CA724 and HE4 levels; and Risk of Ovarian Malignancy Algorithm score between the two groups.Logistic regression analysis showed that CA125 and BRCA1/2 were risk factors for HGSOC. A new algorithm combining CA125 and BRCA1/2 increased the specificity of CA125 for diagnosis of HGSOC. The new algorithm had sensitivity of 81.08% and specificity of 93.10% in the training cohort.

CONCLUSION

The new algorithm using CA125 and BRCA1/2 helped to distinguish between patients with HGSOC and patients with non-HGSOC.

T2-weighted MRI-based radiomics for discriminating between benign and borderline epithelial ovarian tumors: a multicenter study

Background

Preoperative differentiation between benign and borderline epithelial ovarian tumors (EOTs) is challenging and can significantly impact clinical decision making. The purpose was to investigate whether radiomics based on T2-weighted MRI can discriminate between benign and borderline EOTs preoperatively.

Methods

A total of 417 patients (309, 78, and 30 samples in the training and internal and external validation sets) with pathologically proven benign and borderline EOTs were included in this multicenter study. In total, 1130 radiomics features were extracted from manually delineated tumor volumes of interest on images. The following three different models were constructed and evaluated: radiomics features only (radiomics model); clinical and radiological characteristics only (clinic-radiological model); and a combination of them all (combined model). The diagnostic performances of models were assessed using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis, and area under the ROC curves (AUCs) were compared using the DeLong test.

Results

The best machine learning algorithm to distinguish borderline from benign EOTs was the logistic regression. The combined model achieved the best performance in discriminating between benign and borderline EOTs, with an AUC of 0.86 ± 0.07. The radiomics model showed a moderate AUC of 0.82 ± 0.07, outperforming the clinic-radiological model (AUC of 0.79 ± 0.06). In the external validation set, the combined model performed significantly better than the clinic-radiological model (AUCs of 0.86 vs. 0.63, p = 0.021 [DeLong test]).

Conclusions

Radiomics, based on T2-weighted MRI, can provide critical diagnostic information for discriminating between benign and borderline EOTs, thus having the potential to aid personalized treatment options.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13244-022-01264-x.

Protein Panel of Serum-Derived Small Extracellular Vesicles for the Screening and Diagnosis of Epithelial Ovarian Cancer

Although ovarian cancer, a gynecological malignancy, has the highest fatality rate, it still lacks highly specific biomarkers, and the differential diagnosis of ovarian masses remains difficult to determine for gynecologists. Our study aimed to obtain ovarian cancer-specific protein candidates from the circulating small extracellular vesicles (sEVs) and develop a protein panel for ovarian cancer screening and differential diagnosis of ovarian masses. In our study, sEVs derived from the serum of healthy controls and patients with cystadenoma and ovarian cancer were investigated to obtain a cancer-specific proteomic profile. In a discovery cohort, 1119 proteins were identified, and significant differences in the protein profiles of EVs were observed among groups. Then, 23 differentially expressed proteins were assessed using the parallel reaction monitoring in a validation cohort. Through univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses, a novel model comprising three proteins (fibrinogen gamma gene (FGG), mucin 16 (MUC16), and apolipoprotein (APOA4)) was established to screen patients with ovarian cancer. This model exhibited an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of 0.936 (95% CI, 0.888–0.984) with 92.0% sensitivity and 82.9% specificity. Another panel comprising serum CA125, sEV-APOA4, and sEV-CD5L showed excellent performance (AUC 0.945 (95% CI, 0.890–1.000), sensitivity of 88.0%, specificity of 93.3%, and accuracy of 89.2%) to distinguish malignancy from benign ovarian masses. Altogether, our study provided a proteomic signature of circulating sEVs in ovarian cancer. The diagnostic proteomic panel may complement current clinical diagnostic measures for screening ovarian cancer in the general population and the differential diagnosis of ovarian masses.

A comparison of the diagnostic performance of the O-RADS, RMI4, IOTA LR2, and IOTA SR systems by senior and junior doctors

Purpose

This study compared the diagnostic performance of the Ovarian-Adnexal Reporting and Data System (O-RADS), the Risk of Malignancy Index 4 (RMI4), the International Ovarian of Tumor Analysis Logistic Regression Model 2 (IOTA LR2), and the IOTA Simple Rules (IOTA SR) in predicting the malignancy of adnexal masses (AMs).

Methods

This retrospective study included 575 women with AMs between 2017 and 2020. All clinical messages, ultrasound images, and pathological findings were collected. Two senior doctors (group I) and two junior doctors (group II) used the four systems to classify AMs. The postoperative pathological diagnosis was used as the gold standard to evaluate the diagnostic efficiency. A receiver operating characteristic curve was used to test the diagnostic performance. The interrater agreement between the two groups was tested using kappa values.

Results

Of all 592 AMs, 447 (75.5%) were benign, 123 (20.8%) were malignant, and 22 (3.7%) were borderline. The intergroup consistency test yielded kappa values of 0.71, 0.92, 0.68, and 0.77 for the O-RADS, RMI4, IOTA LR2, and IOTA SR, respectively. To predict malignant lesions, the areas under the curve of the O-RADS, RMI4, IOTA LR2, and IOTA SR systems were 0.90, 0.89, 0.90, and 0.86 for group I and 0.89, 0.87, 0.88, and 0.84 for group II, respectively. The O-RADS had the highest sensitivity (91.0% in group I and 84.8% in group II).

Conclusion

The four diagnostic systems could compensate for junior doctors’ inexperience in predicting malignant adnexal lesions. The O-RADS performed best and showed the highest sensitivity.

A Novel Classifier Based on Urinary Proteomics for Distinguishing Between Benign and Malignant Ovarian Tumors

Background

Preoperative differentiation of benign and malignant tumor types is critical for providing individualized treatment interventions to improve prognosis of patients with ovarian cancer. High-throughput proteomics analysis of urine samples was performed to identify reliable and non-invasive biomarkers that could effectively discriminate between the two ovarian tumor types.

Methods

In total, 132 urine samples from 73 malignant and 59 benign cases of ovarian carcinoma were divided into C1 (training and test datasets) and C2 (validation dataset) cohorts. Mass spectrometry (MS) data of all samples were acquired in data-independent acquisition (DIA) mode with an Orbitrap mass spectrometer and analyzed using DIA-NN software. The generated classifier was trained with Random Forest algorithm from the training dataset and validated in the test and validation datasets. Serum CA125 and HE4 levels were additionally determined in all patients. Finally, classification accuracy of the classifier, serum CA125 and serum HE4 in all samples were evaluated and plotted via receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis.

Results

In total, 2,199 proteins were quantified and 69 identified with differential expression in benign and malignant groups of the C1 cohort. A classifier incorporating five proteins (WFDC2, PTMA, PVRL4, FIBA, and PVRL2) was trained and validated in this study. Evaluation of the performance of the classifier revealed AUC values of 0.970 and 0.952 in the test and validation datasets, respectively. In all 132 patients, AUCs of 0.966, 0.947, and 0.979 were achieved with the classifier, serum CA125, and serum HE4, respectively. Among eight patients with early stage malignancy, 7, 6, and 4 were accurately diagnosed based on classifier, serum CA125, and serum HE4, respectively.

Conclusion

The novel classifier incorporating a urinary protein panel presents a promising non-invasive diagnostic biomarker for classifying benign and malignant ovarian tumors.

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.

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.

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.