Diagnostic Performance of Ultrasound-Based International Ovarian Tumor Analysis Simple Rules and Assessment of Different NEoplasias in the adneXa Model for Predicting Malignancy in Women with Ovarian Tumors: A Prospective Cohort Study.
ADNEX model
IOTA
malignancy
simple rules
Journal
Women's health reports (New Rochelle, N.Y.)
ISSN: 2688-4844
Titre abrégé: Womens Health Rep (New Rochelle)
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101768931
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2023
2023
Historique:
accepted:
09
03
2023
medline:
4
5
2023
pubmed:
4
5
2023
entrez:
4
5
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Comparative performance of various ultrasound models in diagnosing ovarian lesions has not been adequately studied. This study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic performance of the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis (IOTA) simple rules and Assessment of Different NEoplasias in the adneXa (ADNEX) models in women with ovarian lesions. Women 18-80 years, with an ovarian lesion planned for surgery were recruited in this prospective observational cohort study. Preoperative risk stratification was done by both IOTA simple rules and the ADNEX model. The diagnostic performance of both models was estimated using histopathology as the gold standard. A total of 90 women were recruited into the study. The IOTA simple rules were applicable to 77 (85.5%) participants and the ADNEX model on 100% women. Both the simple rules and the ADNEX model had good diagnostic performance. The sensitivity and specificity of the IOTA simple rules for predicting malignancy was 66.6% and 91%, while that of the ADNEXA model was 80% and 94%, respectively. The maximum diagnostic accuracy for prediction of both benign and malignant tumors was obtained when cancer antigen-125 (CA-125) was combined with the IOTA ADNEX model (91.0%), but for Stage I malignancy, the maximum diagnostic accuracy was for ADNEX without CA-125 (91.0%). Both the IOTA models have a good diagnostic accuracy and are of paramount importance in differentiating benign from malignant tumors and predicting the stage of the malignant disease.
Sections du résumé
Background
UNASSIGNED
Comparative performance of various ultrasound models in diagnosing ovarian lesions has not been adequately studied. This study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic performance of the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis (IOTA) simple rules and Assessment of Different NEoplasias in the adneXa (ADNEX) models in women with ovarian lesions.
Methods
UNASSIGNED
Women 18-80 years, with an ovarian lesion planned for surgery were recruited in this prospective observational cohort study. Preoperative risk stratification was done by both IOTA simple rules and the ADNEX model. The diagnostic performance of both models was estimated using histopathology as the gold standard.
Results
UNASSIGNED
A total of 90 women were recruited into the study. The IOTA simple rules were applicable to 77 (85.5%) participants and the ADNEX model on 100% women. Both the simple rules and the ADNEX model had good diagnostic performance. The sensitivity and specificity of the IOTA simple rules for predicting malignancy was 66.6% and 91%, while that of the ADNEXA model was 80% and 94%, respectively. The maximum diagnostic accuracy for prediction of both benign and malignant tumors was obtained when cancer antigen-125 (CA-125) was combined with the IOTA ADNEX model (91.0%), but for Stage I malignancy, the maximum diagnostic accuracy was for ADNEX without CA-125 (91.0%).
Conclusion
UNASSIGNED
Both the IOTA models have a good diagnostic accuracy and are of paramount importance in differentiating benign from malignant tumors and predicting the stage of the malignant disease.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37139467
doi: 10.1089/whr.2022.0072
pii: 10.1089/whr.2022.0072
pmc: PMC10150711
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
202-210Informations de copyright
© Neha Rashmi et al., 2023; Published by Mary Ann Liebert, Inc.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
No competing financial interests exist.
Références
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2009 Oct;34(4):462-70
pubmed: 19685552
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2010 Aug;36(2):226-34
pubmed: 20455203
Radiology. 2020 Jan;294(1):168-185
pubmed: 31687921
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2017 Jun;49(6):778-783
pubmed: 27194129
J Obstet Gynaecol India. 2019 Aug;69(4):356-362
pubmed: 31391744
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2013 Oct;42(4):467-71
pubmed: 23576304
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2000 Oct;16(5):500-5
pubmed: 11169340
Gynecol Obstet Invest. 2021;86(1-2):132-138
pubmed: 33596584
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2020 Apr;247:207-211
pubmed: 32146226
Front Oncol. 2021 Jun 01;11:673722
pubmed: 34141619
J Clin Med. 2020 Jun 26;9(6):
pubmed: 32604883
Gynecol Oncol. 2013 Jul;130(1):140-6
pubmed: 23578539
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2022 May;59(5):668-676
pubmed: 34533862
Eur J Cancer. 2012 Jul;48(11):1649-56
pubmed: 22226481
BMJ. 2014 Oct 15;349:g5920
pubmed: 25320247
Gynecol Obstet Fertil. 2011 Sep;39(9):477-81
pubmed: 21820936
J Midlife Health. 2020 Oct-Dec;11(4):217-223
pubmed: 33767562
J Clin Diagn Res. 2017 Aug;11(8):TC06-TC09
pubmed: 28969237
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2014 Nov;44(5):503-14
pubmed: 24920435
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2013 Jan;41(1):9-20
pubmed: 23065859
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2012 Sep;40(3):360-6
pubmed: 22648861
BMJ. 2010 Dec 14;341:c6839
pubmed: 21156740
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2011 Oct;38(4):456-65
pubmed: 21520475
Int J Gen Med. 2021 Sep 16;14:5665-5673
pubmed: 34557021
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2016 Apr;214(4):424-437
pubmed: 26800772
Cancers (Basel). 2022 Feb 05;14(3):
pubmed: 35159077