Diagnostic Models Combining Clinical Information, Ultrasound and Biochemical Markers for Ovarian Cancer: Cochrane Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
ADNEX
RMI
ROMA
diagnostic test accuracy
ovarian cancer
Journal
Cancers
ISSN: 2072-6694
Titre abrégé: Cancers (Basel)
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101526829
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
26 Jul 2022
26 Jul 2022
Historique:
received:
13
05
2022
accepted:
21
06
2022
entrez:
27
7
2022
pubmed:
28
7
2022
medline:
28
7
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
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.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35892881
pii: cancers14153621
doi: 10.3390/cancers14153621
pmc: PMC9332683
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Review
Langues
eng
Subventions
Organisme : National Institute for Health Research
ID : HTA 13/03
Références
Eur J Cancer. 2016 May;58:17-29
pubmed: 26922169
Gynecol Oncol. 2013 Jul;130(1):140-6
pubmed: 23578539
Br J Cancer. 2014 Aug 12;111(4):680-8
pubmed: 24937676
BMJ. 2014 Oct 15;349:g5920
pubmed: 25320247
Gynecol Oncol. 2012 Jul;126(1):157-66
pubmed: 22484399
Ann Intern Med. 2011 Oct 18;155(8):529-36
pubmed: 22007046
Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2012 Feb;22(2):238-44
pubmed: 22214964
Stat Methods Med Res. 2017 Aug;26(4):1896-1911
pubmed: 26116616
Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2014;15(1):101-5
pubmed: 24528007
Stat Med. 2001 Oct 15;20(19):2865-84
pubmed: 11568945
Hum Reprod Update. 2014 May-Jun;20(3):449-62
pubmed: 24327552
J Ultrasound Med. 2015 Feb;34(2):207-17
pubmed: 25614393
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022 Jul 26;7:CD011964
pubmed: 35879201
Ann Intern Med. 2019 Jan 1;170(1):51-58
pubmed: 30596875
Gynecol Oncol. 2018 Oct;151(1):159-165
pubmed: 30149898
BMC Cancer. 2012 Jun 19;12:258
pubmed: 22712526
Ann Lab Med. 2019 May;39(3):252-262
pubmed: 30623617
Obstet Gynecol. 2009 Feb;113(2 Pt 1):384-94
pubmed: 19155910
Obstet Gynecol Sci. 2021 May;64(3):293-299
pubmed: 33593045
Gynecol Oncol Rep. 2018 Jul 18;25:110-114
pubmed: 30109256
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2019 Dec;54(6):815-822
pubmed: 31152572
J Clin Epidemiol. 2005 Oct;58(10):982-90
pubmed: 16168343
J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2017 Dec;43(12):1870-1879
pubmed: 29027715
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2017 Jun;49(6):784-792
pubmed: 27514486
Magy Onkol. 2016 Nov 29;60(4):320-327
pubmed: 27898751
Gynecol Oncol. 2017 Jun;145(3):486-492
pubmed: 28372872
Clin Chem Lab Med. 2011 Mar;49(3):527-34
pubmed: 21320028
Eur J Surg Oncol. 2019 Aug;45(8):1425-1431
pubmed: 31027945
Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2015 Oct;55(5):493-7
pubmed: 26172511
Oman Med J. 2016 Sep;31(5):336-44
pubmed: 27602187
J Clin Epidemiol. 2006 Dec;59(12):1331-2; author reply 1332-3
pubmed: 17098577
Tumour Biol. 2014 Jun;35(6):6127-38
pubmed: 24627132
Can Oncol Nurs J. 2002 Summer;12(3):152-68
pubmed: 12271917
Clinics (Sao Paulo). 2012;67(5):437-41
pubmed: 22666786
BMJ Open. 2016 Aug 09;6(8):e010333
pubmed: 27507231
Gynecol Obstet Invest. 2019;84(6):591-598
pubmed: 31311023
Iran Red Crescent Med J. 2014 Jun;16(6):e17185
pubmed: 25068046