Usefulness of diagnostic indices comprising clinical, sonographic, and biomarker data for discriminating benign from malignant ovarian masses

Diagnostic accuracy of the Copenhagen Index in ovarian malignancy: A meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To assess the diagnostic value of the Copenhagen index for ovarian malignancy.

METHODS

PubMed, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, Embase, CBM, CNKI, and WanFang databases were searched throughout June 2021. Statistical analyses were performed using Stata 12, Meta-DiSc, and RevMan 5.3. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic odds ratio were calculated, the summary receiver operating characteristic curve was drawn, and the area under the curve was calculated.

RESULTS

Ten articles, including 11 studies with a total of 5266 patients, were included. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic odds ratio were 0.82 [95% CI (0.80-0.83)], 0.88 [95% CI (0.87-0.89)], and 57.31 [95% CI (32.84-100.02)], respectively. The area under the summary receiver operating characteristics curve and the Q index were 0.9545 and 0.8966, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Our systematic review shows that the sensitivity and specificity of the Copenhagen index are high enough for it to be used in a clinical setting to provide accurate ovarian cancer diagnosis without considering menopausal status.

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

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Assessment of prognosis by established prognosis scores and physicians' judgement in mRCC patients: an analysis of the STAR-TOR registry

Background

Temsirolimus is a mTOR inhibitor approved for the first-line treatment of advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma (a/mRCC) with poor prognosis. In treatment of a/mRCC several prognostic scoring systems are used. We assessed the prognostic value of these scores in a large temsirolimus treated cohort and compared the results with the physician’s prognosis.

Methods

A German multicenter registry (STAR-TOR) for a/mRCC patients (NCT00700258) was established to evaluate the efficacy and safety of temsirolimus 25 mg weekly in a routine clinical setting. These prospective data were systematically analyzed and followed-up by an independent clinical research organization to compare established prognostic scores (MSKCC, IMDC and Hudes) with the risk assessment by treating physicians based on their medical expertise and match them with survival outcomes.

Results

This interim analysis included 547 patients between 02/2008 and 05/2015 in 87 centers. Either prognostic tool resulted in significant and clinically meaningful differentiation between good, intermediate and poor prognosis. However, physician’s prognosis identified more patients with good prognosis (9.1% vs. 1.3%). In patients with good physician’s prognosis and intermediate prognosis by MSKCC, overall survival was nearly doubled compared to consensual intermediate prognosis (26.6 vs. 13.6 months), albeit without reaching statistical significance (P=0.09). For poor prognosis assessed by the physician, MSKCC performed statistically better for differentiation between poor and intermediate prognosis with a median overall survival of 10.3 vs. 5.5 months (P<0.01).

Conclusions

Physician’s prognosis may be able to identify a subset of patients treated with temsirolimus with good prognosis when MSKCC-determines intermediate prognosis while the MSKCC score could identify patients which were falsely placed in the poor risk group by physicians.

Prediction Models of Adnexal Masses: State-of-the-Art Review

Importance

Several predictive models and scoring systems have been developed to differentiate between benign and malignant ovarian masses, in order to guide effective management. These models use combinations of patient characteristics, ultrasound markers, and biochemical markers.

Objective

The aim of this study was to describe, compare, and prioritize, according to their strengths and qualities, all the adnexal prediction models.

Evidence Acquisition

This was a state-of-the-art review, synthesizing the findings of the current published literature on the available prediction models of adnexal masses.

Results

The existing models include subjective assessment by expert sonographers, the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis models (logistic regression models 1 and 2, Simple Rules, 3-step strategy, and ADNEX [Assessment of Different NEoplasias in the adneXa] model), the Risk of Malignancy Index, the Risk of Malignancy Ovarian Algorithm, the Gynecologic Imaging Reporting and Data System, and the Ovarian-Adnexal Reporting and Data System. Overall, subjective assessment appears to be superior to all prediction models. However, the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis models are probably the best available methods for nonexpert examiners. The Ovarian-Adnexal Reporting and Data System is an international approach that incorporates both the common European and North American approaches, but still needs to be validated.

Conclusions

Many prediction models exist for the assessment of adnexal masses. The adoption of a particular model is based on local guidelines, as well as sonographer's experience. The safety of expectant management of adnexal masses with benign ultrasound morphology is still under investigation.

Development and validation of a model that includes two ultrasound parameters and the plasma D-dimer level for predicting malignancy in adnexal masses: an observational study

Background

Pre-operative discrimination of malignant from benign adnexal masses is crucial for planning additional imaging, preparation, surgery and postoperative care. This study aimed to define key ultrasound and clinical variables and develop a predictive model for calculating preoperative ovarian tumor malignancy risk in a gynecologic oncology referral center. We compared our model to a subjective ultrasound assessment (SUA) method and previously described models.

Methods

This prospective, single-center observational study included consecutive patients. We collected systematic ultrasound and clinical data, including cancer antigen 125, D-dimer (DD) levels and platelet count. Histological examinations served as the reference standard. We performed univariate and multivariate regressions, and Bayesian information criterion (BIC) to assess the optimal model. Data were split into 2 subsets: training, for model development (190 observations) and testing, for model validation (n = 100).

Results

Among 290 patients, 52% had malignant disease, including epithelial ovarian cancer (72.8%), metastatic disease (14.5%), borderline tumors (6.6%), and non-epithelial malignancies (4.6%). Significant variables were included into a multivariate analysis. The optimal model, included three independent factors: solid areas, the color score, and the DD level. Malignant and benign lesions had mean DD values of 2.837 and 0.354 μg/ml, respectively. We transformed established formulae into a web-based calculator (http://gin-onc-calculators.com/gynonc.php) for calculating the adnexal mass malignancy risk. The areas under the curve (AUCs) for models compared in the testing set were: our model (0.977), Simple Rules risk calculation (0.976), Assessment of Different NEoplasias in the adneXa (ADNEX) (0.972), Logistic Regression 2 (LR2) (0.969), Risk of Malignancy Index (RMI) 4 (0.932), SUA (0.930), and RMI3 (0.912).

Conclusions

Two simple ultrasound predictors and the DD level (also included in a mathematical model), when used by gynecologist oncologist, discriminated malignant from benign ovarian lesions as well or better than other more complex models and the SUA method. These parameters (and the model) may be clinically useful for planning adequate management in the cancer center. The model needs substantial validation.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12885-019-5629-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Adnexal lesions: Imaging strategies for ultrasound and MR imaging

Adnexal lesions are routinely encountered in general practice. Ultrasound is the first line of investigation in determining the benign or malignant potential of an adnexal lesion. In the cases of classic simple cysts, hemorrhagic cysts, endometriomas, dermoids and obviously malignant lesions, ultrasound may be sufficient for management recommendations. In cases where there is an isolated adnexal lesion, without peritoneal disease or serum CA-125 elevation, and in lesions considered indeterminate on ultrasound, MR imaging with incorporation of the ADNEx MR score can increase the specificity for the diagnosis of benignity or malignancy. This article will review the imaging evaluation of adnexal lesions and how to incorporate the ADNEx MR score to help guide clinical management.

A systematic approach to adnexal masses discovered on ultrasound: the ADNEx MR scoring system

Adnexal lesions are a common occurrence in radiology practice and imaging plays a crucial role in triaging women appropriately. Current trends toward early detection and characterization have increased the need for accurate imaging assessment of adnexal lesions prior to treatment. Ultrasound is the first-line imaging modality for assessing adnexal lesions; however, approximately 20% of lesions are incompletely characterized after ultrasound evaluation. Secondary assessment with MR imaging using the ADNEx MR Scoring System has been demonstrated as highly accurate in the characterization of adnexal lesions and in excluding ovarian cancer. This review will address the role of MR imaging in further assessment of adnexal lesions discovered on US, and the utility of the ADNEx MR Scoring System.

Indeterminate Adnexal Cysts at US: Prevalence and Characteristics of Ovarian Cancer

Purpose To assess the prevalence of indeterminate adnexal cysts in women presenting to academic medical centers for pelvic ultrasonography (US), determine the incidence of malignancy, and identify cyst and patient characteristics that are predictive of malignancy. Materials and Methods A multicenter study of US-detected adnexal cysts with appropriate follow-up (surgical pathologic examination, imaging and/or clinical examination) was conducted from January 2008 to June 2012. Indeterminate cysts were classified as category 1 (typical benign appearing cysts >5 cm) or category 2 (cysts with avascular solid components) on the basis of a combination of definitions in the existing literature. The incidence of neoplasms and malignant tumors was calculated. Patient and cyst characteristics associated with neoplasm and malignant tumors were evaluated with the χ² test or Fisher exact test for categorical variables and the t test for continuous variables. A backward stepwise logistic regression model was performed for two outcomes: (a) the presence of any neoplasm (benign or malignant) and (b) the presence of a malignant tumor. Results There were 1637 women with an adnexal cyst at US; 391 (mean age = 41.8 years ± 13.5.1; range = 17-91 years) had an indeterminate adnexal cyst at US. The prevalence of indeterminate adnexal cysts was 23.9% (391 of 1637; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.22, 0.26). Three hundred three indeterminate cysts in 280 women (mean age = 42.9 years ± 14.1; range = 17-88 years) had adequate follow-up. The incidence of ovarian neoplasms (benign and malignant) was 24.8% (75 of 303 cysts; 95% CI: 0.20, 0.30), and the incidence of malignant tumors was 3.6% (11 of 303 cysts; 95% CI: 0.02, 0.06). The proportion of ovarian neoplasms differed between category 1 and category 2 cysts (17.5% [25 of 143 cysts; 95% CI: 0.12, 0.25] vs 31.3% [50 of 160 cysts; 95% CI: 0.24, 0.39], respectively; P = .001). The proportion of malignant tumors differed between categories 1 and 2 cysts (0% [0 of 143 cysts] vs 6.9% [11 of 160 cysts; 95% CI: 0.03, 0.12]; P < .001). The presence of an avascular nodular component was a significant predictor of malignancy at stepwise logistic regression analysis (odds ratio = 2.83; P ≤ .0001; 95% CI: 1.69, 4.70). Conclusion The presence of an avascular nodular component was the most significant predictor of the presence of malignancy in indeterminate adnexal cysts. The risk of malignancy is higher with category 2 cysts than with category 1 cysts. ^© RSNA, 2018.

[Diagnostic value of CA125, HE4 and Copenhagen Index in differentiating benign from malignant epithelial ovarian tumors]

OBJECTIVE

To analyze diagnostic value of Copenhagen Index based on pretreatment serum CA125, HE4 and age in differentiating benign and malignant epithelial ovarian tumors.

METHODS

The clinical data were analyzed for 208 consecutive patients with epithelial ovarian tumors (including 100 with malignant and 108 with benign tumors) treated in our department between September, 2014 and September, 2016. The receiver-operating characteristic curve was drawn based on the golden standard of pathological diagnosis for calculation of the diagnostic sensitivity and specificity of CA125, HE4 and the Copenhagen Index.

RESULTS

In the overall cases, early stage cases and advanced stage cases, the prediction probabilities of CA125, HE4 and Copenhagen Index were all significantly higher for malignant than in benign tumors (P<0.001). The sensitivities of CA125, HE4, Copenhagen Index for differentiating benign and malignant tumors were 81.0%, 86.0% and 91.0% in the overall cases, 64.0%, 68.0% and 72.0% in early stage cases, and 86.7%, 92.0% and 97.3% in advanced stage cases, and their diagnostic specificities were 88.0%, 93.5% and 96.3%, respectively. Copenhagen Index had the highest diagnostic sensitivity (but not in early stage cases) and specificity followed by HE4 and then by CA125 (P<0.001) (P>0.05).

CONCLUSION

Copenhagen Index combined with CA125, HE4 and age hase better diagnostic value than HE4 or CA125 alone for differentiation between benign and malignant epithelial ovarian tumors, and can be used clinically to improve the early diagnostic rate of epithelial ovarian cancer.

Analysis of falsely elevated risk of ovarian malignancy algorithm in women with ovarian endometrioma

Objective

To estimate the incidence of falsely elevated risk of ovarian malignancy algorithm (ROMA) in a group of women with pathologically confirmed endometrioma and to investigate the associated factors.

Methods

One hundred premenopausal women surgically diagnosed with ovarian endometrioma were selected. Preoperative clinical, laboratory, and surgical characteristics were compared between the elevated-risk group (ROMA-premenopausal value, ≥7.4%) and normal-risk group (ROMA-premenopausal value, <7.4%).

Results

Elevated ROMA was observed in 15 women (false positive rate, 15%). Excluding one woman with known chronic renal failure, we compared the characteristics of 99 women between the elevated-risk group (n=14) and the normalrisk group (n=85). None of the clinical and surgical variables distinguished the two groups. Serum level of CA 125 >82.3 U/mL and serum level of human epididymis protein 4 (HE4) >46 pmol/L could predict an elevated ROMA test with a statistical significance. When serum level of HE4 ≤46 pmol/L, none of the women showed an elevated ROMA test, regardless of serum level of CA 125; however, 55.6% of the women showed an elevated ROMA test when serum level of HE4 >46 pmol/L and CA 125 ≤82.3 U/mL and all women showed an elevated ROMA test when serum level of HE4 >46 pmol/L and CA 125 >82.3 U/mL.

Conclusion

The incidence of falsely elevated ROMA was 15% in the group of women with pathologically confirmed endometrioma. Interpretation of the ROMA results should be cautious when serum level of HE4 >46 pmol/L and CA 125 >82.3 U/mL in women with suspicious ovarian endometrioma.