Performance of IOTA Simple Rules Risks, ADNEX Model, Subjective Assessment Compared to CA125 and HE4 with ROMA Algorithm in Discriminating between Benign, Borderline and Stage I Malignant Adnexal Lesions.
ADNEX model
CA125
HE4
International Ovarian Tumor Analysis (IOTA)
Simple Rules Risk
borderline ovarian tumors
complex adnexal mass
ovarian cancer
risk of malignancy algorithm (ROMA)
Journal
Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)
ISSN: 2075-4418
Titre abrégé: Diagnostics (Basel)
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101658402
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
25 Feb 2023
25 Feb 2023
Historique:
received:
03
01
2023
revised:
16
02
2023
accepted:
19
02
2023
entrez:
11
3
2023
pubmed:
12
3
2023
medline:
12
3
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Borderline ovarian tumors (BOTs) and early clinical stage malignant adnexal masses can make sonographic diagnosis challenging, while the clinical utility of tumor markers, e.g., CA125 and HE4, or the ROMA algorithm, remains controversial in such cases. To compare the IOTA group Simple Rules Risk (SRR), the ADNEX model and the subjective assessment (SA) with serum CA125, HE4 and the ROMA algorithm in the preoperative discrimination between benign tumors, BOTs and stage I malignant ovarian lesions (MOLs). A multicenter retrospective study was conducted with lesions classified prospectively using subjective assessment and tumor markers with the ROMA. The SRR assessment and ADNEX risk estimation were applied retrospectively. The sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative likelihood ratios (LR+ and LR-) were calculated for all tests. In total, 108 patients (the median age: 48 yrs, 44 postmenopausal) with 62 (79.6%) benign masses, 26 (24.1%) BOTs and 20 (18.5%) stage I MOLs were included. When comparing benign masses with combined BOTs and stage I MOLs, SA correctly identified 76% of benign masses, 69% of BOTs and 80% of stage I MOLs. Significant differences were found for the presence and size of the largest solid component ( This study demonstrates the limited value of diagnostics based on CA125 and HE4 serum tumor markers and the ROMA algorithm as independent modalities for the detection of BOTs and early stage adnexal malignant tumors in women. SA and IOTA methods based on ultrasound examination may present superior value over tumor marker assessment.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Borderline ovarian tumors (BOTs) and early clinical stage malignant adnexal masses can make sonographic diagnosis challenging, while the clinical utility of tumor markers, e.g., CA125 and HE4, or the ROMA algorithm, remains controversial in such cases.
OBJECTIVE
OBJECTIVE
To compare the IOTA group Simple Rules Risk (SRR), the ADNEX model and the subjective assessment (SA) with serum CA125, HE4 and the ROMA algorithm in the preoperative discrimination between benign tumors, BOTs and stage I malignant ovarian lesions (MOLs).
METHODS
METHODS
A multicenter retrospective study was conducted with lesions classified prospectively using subjective assessment and tumor markers with the ROMA. The SRR assessment and ADNEX risk estimation were applied retrospectively. The sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative likelihood ratios (LR+ and LR-) were calculated for all tests.
RESULTS
RESULTS
In total, 108 patients (the median age: 48 yrs, 44 postmenopausal) with 62 (79.6%) benign masses, 26 (24.1%) BOTs and 20 (18.5%) stage I MOLs were included. When comparing benign masses with combined BOTs and stage I MOLs, SA correctly identified 76% of benign masses, 69% of BOTs and 80% of stage I MOLs. Significant differences were found for the presence and size of the largest solid component (
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
This study demonstrates the limited value of diagnostics based on CA125 and HE4 serum tumor markers and the ROMA algorithm as independent modalities for the detection of BOTs and early stage adnexal malignant tumors in women. SA and IOTA methods based on ultrasound examination may present superior value over tumor marker assessment.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36900029
pii: diagnostics13050885
doi: 10.3390/diagnostics13050885
pmc: PMC10000903
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Références
Eur J Cancer. 2016 May;58:17-29
pubmed: 26922169
Br J Radiol. 2021 Sep 1;94(1125):20201375
pubmed: 34106762
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2022 May;59(5):668-676
pubmed: 34533862
Gynecol Oncol. 2013 Feb;128(2):239-44
pubmed: 23063998
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2017 Dec;50(6):788-799
pubmed: 28101917
J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2013 Nov-Dec;20(6):754-65
pubmed: 24183269
J Ovarian Res. 2019 Mar 27;12(1):28
pubmed: 30917847
Radiology. 2018 Jun;287(3):1041-1049
pubmed: 29480762
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2014 Jan;43(1):89-97
pubmed: 23828371
Dis Markers. 2019 Oct 13;2019:6241743
pubmed: 31737130
J Ovarian Res. 2021 Dec 2;14(1):169
pubmed: 34857005
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2011 Jul;38(1):99-106
pubmed: 21351179
Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2014 Nov;290(5):839-42
pubmed: 25082067
Br J Radiol. 2021 Sep 1;94(1125):20210157
pubmed: 33929901
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2013 Jan;41(1):80-9
pubmed: 23001924
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2012 Sep;40(3):345-54
pubmed: 22611001
Lancet Oncol. 2019 Mar;20(3):448-458
pubmed: 30737137
Medicina (Kaunas). 2020 Dec 11;56(12):
pubmed: 33322438
Lancet. 2021 Jun 5;397(10290):2182-2193
pubmed: 33991479
Curr Oncol Rep. 2019 Jul 26;21(8):75
pubmed: 31346778
Cancer Cytopathol. 2018 Feb;126(2):112-121
pubmed: 28834408
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2020 Dec;29(12):2504-2512
pubmed: 33051337
BMJ. 2020 Jul 30;370:m2614
pubmed: 32732303
Ann Oncol. 2022 Mar;33(3):330-339
pubmed: 35090748
Ginekol Pol. 2017;88(12):647-653
pubmed: 29303221
Br J Cancer. 2022 May;126(9):1301-1309
pubmed: 35031764
Obstet Gynecol. 2021 Aug 1;138(2):261-271
pubmed: 34237756
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2019 Dec;54(6):815-822
pubmed: 31152572
Eur Radiol. 2020 Oct;30(10):5370-5373
pubmed: 32468105
Facts Views Vis Obgyn. 2015;7(1):32-41
pubmed: 25897370
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2019 Dec;54(6):823-830
pubmed: 30937992
BMJ. 2010 Dec 14;341:c6839
pubmed: 21156740
Abdom Radiol (NY). 2021 May;46(5):2127-2139
pubmed: 33079254
Radiographics. 2022 Mar-Apr;42(2):609-624
pubmed: 35061515
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2011 Oct;38(4):456-65
pubmed: 21520475
Int J Gen Med. 2021 Sep 16;14:5665-5673
pubmed: 34557021
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2000 Oct;16(5):500-5
pubmed: 11169340
Curr Treat Options Oncol. 2016 Jan;17(1):3
pubmed: 26739150
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2016 Apr;214(4):424-437
pubmed: 26800772
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2020 Mar;214(3):694-700
pubmed: 31770022
Cancers (Basel). 2022 Jul 26;14(15):
pubmed: 35892881
Clin Transl Oncol. 2021 Oct;23(10):1967-1978
pubmed: 33840014
Ultraschall Med. 2006 Feb;27(1):79-105
pubmed: 16508866
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2020 Apr;247:207-211
pubmed: 32146226
Br J Cancer. 2011 Mar 1;104(5):863-70
pubmed: 21304524