Copenhagen index (CPH-I) is more favorable than CA125, HE4, and risk of ovarian malignancy algorithm (ROMA): Nomogram prediction models with clinical-ultrasonographic feature for diagnosing ovarian neoplasms

Background

We aimed to analyze the benign and malignant identification efficiency of CA125, HE4, risk of ovarian malignancy algorithm (ROMA), Copenhagen Index (CPH-I) in ovarian neoplasms and establish a nomogram to improve the preoperative evaluation value of ovarian neoplasms.

Methods

A total of 3,042 patients with ovarian neoplasms were retrospectively classified according to postoperative pathological diagnosis [benign, n = 2389; epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC), n = 653]. The patients were randomly divided into training and test cohorts at a ratio of 7:3. Using CA125, HE4, ROMA, and CPH-I, Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves corresponding to different truncation values were calculated and compared, and optimal truncation values were selected. Clinical and imaging risk factors were calculated using univariate regression, and significant variables were selected for multivariate regression analysis combined with ROMA and CPH-I. Nomograms were constructed to predict the occurrence of EOC, and the accuracy was assessed by external validation.

Results

When the cutoff value of CA125, HE4, ROMA, and CPH-I was 100 U/ml, 70 pmol/L, 12.5/14.4% (premenopausal/postmenopausal) and 5%, respectively, the AUC was 0.674, 0.721, 0.750 and 0.769, respectively. From univariate regression, the clinical risk factors were older age, menopausal status, higher birth rate, hypertension, and diabetes; imaging risk factors were multilocular tumors, solid nodules, bilateral tumors, larger tumor diameter, and ascites. The AUC of the nomogram containing ROMA and CPH-I was 0.8914 and 0.9114, respectively, which was better than the prediction accuracies of CA125, HE4, ROMA, and CPH-I alone. The nomogram with CPH-I was significantly better than that with ROMA (P < 0.001), and a nomogram decision curve analysis (DCA) containing CPH-I seemed to have better clinical benefits than ROMA. For external validation of this nomogram containing ROMA and CPH-I, the C-indices were 0.889 and 0.900, and the calibration curves were close to 45°, showing good agreement with the predicted values.

Conclusion

We conclude that CPH-I and ROMA have higher diagnostic values in the preoperative diagnosis of EOC than other single tumor markers like CA125 or HE4. A nomogram based on CPH-I and ROMA with clinical and ultrasonic indicators had a better diagnostic value, and the CPH-I nomogram had the highest diagnostic efficacy.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

External validation of Risk of Malignancy Index compared to IOTA Simple Rules

BACKGROUND

Mathematical predictive models for ovarian tumors have an advantage over subjective assessment due to their relative simplicity, and therefore usefulness for less experienced sonographers. It is currently unclear which predictive model is best at predicting the nature of an ovarian tumor.

PURPOSE

To compare the diagnostic predictive accuracy of the International Ovarian Tumour Analysis Simple Rules (IOTA SR) with Risk of Malignancy Index (RMI), to differentiate between benign and malignant ovarian tumors.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A total of 202 women diagnosed with ovarian tumor(s) were included. Preoperatively, patients were examined through transvaginal ultrasonography and CA-125 (U/mL) levels were measured. RMI and IOTA SR were determined, and where possible compared to definitive histopathological diagnosis.

RESULTS

Of the 202 women with ovarian tumors, 168 women were included in this cohort study. Of these tumors, 118 (70.2%) were benign, 17 (10.1%) were borderline, and 33 (19.7%) were malignant. The sensitivity, specificity, and area under the curve for the RMI were 72.0%, 90.7%, and 0.896, respectively. For the IOTA SR, these were 90.0%, 68.6%, and 0.793, respectively.

CONCLUSION

This cohort study shows that the RMI is a relatively useful diagnostic model in characterizing ovarian tumors, compared to the IOTA SR. However, due to the relatively low sensitivity of the RMI and high rate of inconclusive results of the IOTA SR, both diagnostic tests do not seem discriminative enough. Therefore, alternative diagnostic models are necessary.