Diagnostic Performance of Ultrasonography-Based Risk Models in Differentiating Between Benign and Malignant Ovarian Tumors in a US Cohort.
Journal
JAMA network open
ISSN: 2574-3805
Titre abrégé: JAMA Netw Open
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101729235
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
03 Jul 2023
03 Jul 2023
Historique:
medline:
17
7
2023
pubmed:
13
7
2023
entrez:
13
7
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Ultrasonography-based risk models can help nonexpert clinicians evaluate adnexal lesions and reduce surgical interventions for benign tumors. Yet, these models have limited uptake in the US, and studies comparing their diagnostic accuracy are lacking. To evaluate, in a US cohort, the diagnostic performance of 3 ultrasonography-based risk models for differentiating between benign and malignant adnexal lesions: International Ovarian Tumor Analysis (IOTA) Simple Rules with inconclusive cases reclassified as malignant or reevaluated by an expert, IOTA Assessment of Different Neoplasias in the Adnexa (ADNEX), and Ovarian-Adnexal Reporting and Data System (O-RADS). This retrospective diagnostic study was conducted at a single US academic medical center and included consecutive patients aged 18 to 89 years with adnexal masses that were managed surgically or conservatively between January 2017 and October 2022. Evaluation of adnexal lesions using the Simple Rules, ADNEX, and O-RADS. The main outcome was diagnostic performance, including area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC), sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and positive and negative likelihood ratios. Surgery or follow-up were reference standards. Secondary analyses evaluated the models' performances stratified by menopause status and race. The cohort included 511 female patients with a 15.9% malignant tumor prevalence (81 patients). Mean (SD) ages of patients with benign and malignant adnexal lesions were 44.1 (14.4) and 52.5 (15.2) years, respectively, and 200 (39.1%) were postmenopausal. In the ROC analysis, the AUCs for discriminative performance of the ADNEX and O-RADS models were 0.96 (95% CI, 0.93-0.98) and 0.92 (95% CI, 0.90-0.95), respectively. After converting the ADNEX continuous individualized risk into the discrete ordinal categories of O-RADS, the ADNEX performance was reduced to an AUC of 0.93 (95% CI, 0.90-0.96), which was similar to that for O-RADS. The Simple Rules combined with expert reevaluation had 93.8% sensitivity (95% CI, 86.2%-98.0%) and 91.9% specificity (95% CI, 88.9%-94.3%), and the Simple Rules combined with malignant classification had 93.8% sensitivity (95% CI, 86.2%-98.0%) and 88.1% specificity (95% CI, 84.7%-91.0%). At a 10% risk threshold, ADNEX had 91.4% sensitivity (95% CI, 83.0%-96.5%) and 86.3% specificity (95% CI, 82.7%-89.4%) and O-RADS had 98.8% sensitivity (95% CI, 93.3%-100%) and 74.4% specificity (95% CI, 70.0%-78.5%). The specificities of all models were significantly lower in the postmenopausal group. Subgroup analysis revealed high performances independent of race. In this diagnostic study of a US cohort, the Simple Rules, ADNEX, and O-RADS models performed well in differentiating between benign and malignant adnexal lesions; this outcome has been previously reported primarily in European populations. Risk stratification models can lead to more accurate and consistent evaluations of adnexal masses, especially when used by nonexpert clinicians, and may reduce unnecessary surgeries.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37440228
pii: 2807189
doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.23289
pmc: PMC10346125
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e2323289Références
Gynecol Oncol. 2012 Aug;126(2):286-90
pubmed: 22507534
Front Med (Lausanne). 2022 Jul 05;9:913549
pubmed: 35865172
Health Technol Assess. 2018 Aug;22(44):1-264
pubmed: 30165935
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2008 Jun;31(6):681-90
pubmed: 18504770
JAMA Netw Open. 2022 Jun 1;5(6):e2216370
pubmed: 35679042
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2019 Dec;54(6):815-822
pubmed: 31152572
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2017 Sep;50(3):406-407
pubmed: 28004459
JAMA Intern Med. 2019 Jan 1;179(1):71-77
pubmed: 30419104
JAMA Oncol. 2023 Feb 1;9(2):225-233
pubmed: 36520422
Gynecol Oncol. 2021 Jul;162(1):107-112
pubmed: 33966893
Eur Radiol. 2022 Nov;32(11):7854-7864
pubmed: 35583711
Biometrics. 1988 Sep;44(3):837-45
pubmed: 3203132
Eur J Cancer. 2016 May;58:17-29
pubmed: 26922169
Can Assoc Radiol J. 2023 Feb;74(1):18-19
pubmed: 36113072
J Biomed Inform. 2009 Apr;42(2):377-81
pubmed: 18929686
JAMA. 2011 Jun 8;305(22):2295-303
pubmed: 21642681
J Am Coll Radiol. 2018 Oct;15(10):1415-1429
pubmed: 30149950
N Engl J Med. 2022 Aug 25;387(8):727-736
pubmed: 36001713
Radiol Imaging Cancer. 2022 Sep;4(5):e220121
pubmed: 36178353
Eur Radiol. 2021 Feb;31(2):674-684
pubmed: 32809166
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2022 May;59(5):668-676
pubmed: 34533862
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2013 Jan;41(1):80-9
pubmed: 23001924
J Ultrasound Med. 2017 May;36(5):849-863
pubmed: 28266033
Lancet Oncol. 2019 Mar;20(3):448-458
pubmed: 30737137
Ultrasonography. 2022 Jul;41(3):511-518
pubmed: 35196832
BMJ. 2014 Oct 15;349:g5920
pubmed: 25320247
Lancet. 2016 Mar 5;387(10022):945-956
pubmed: 26707054
Radiology. 2020 Jan;294(1):168-185
pubmed: 31687921
BMJ. 2020 Jul 30;370:m2614
pubmed: 32732303
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2023 Feb;61(2):149-151
pubmed: 36722429
Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am. 2019 Dec;46(4):625-641
pubmed: 31677746
Stat Med. 2012 Oct 15;31(23):2610-26
pubmed: 22733650
Gynecol Oncol. 2005 Nov;99(2):447-61
pubmed: 16126262
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2017 Jun;49(6):784-792
pubmed: 27514486
Cell Rep. 2022 Dec 20;41(12):111838
pubmed: 36543131
Radiology. 2022 Jun;303(3):611-612
pubmed: 35315724
Radiology. 2023 Jun;307(5):e223281
pubmed: 37158725
Facts Views Vis Obgyn. 2021 Jun;13(2):107-130
pubmed: 34107646
BMJ. 2010 Dec 14;341:c6839
pubmed: 21156740
J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2020 Aug;42(8):1040-1050.e1
pubmed: 32736855
Abdom Radiol (NY). 2021 May;46(5):2127-2139
pubmed: 33079254
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2017 Dec;217(6):652-660
pubmed: 28735703
J Biomed Inform. 2019 Jul;95:103208
pubmed: 31078660
CA Cancer J Clin. 2023 Jan;73(1):17-48
pubmed: 36633525
Br J Cancer. 2016 Aug 23;115(5):542-8
pubmed: 27482647
Radiology. 2022 Jul;304(1):114-120
pubmed: 35438559
BMC Cancer. 2019 Jun 11;19(1):564
pubmed: 31185938
BMJ. 2004 Jul 17;329(7458):168-9
pubmed: 15258077
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2000 Oct;16(5):500-5
pubmed: 11169340
JAMA Netw Open. 2020 Jan 3;3(1):e1919896
pubmed: 31977064
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2016 Apr;214(4):424-437
pubmed: 26800772
Radiology. 2022 Jul;304(1):106-113
pubmed: 35412367
Radiology. 2019 Nov;293(2):359-371
pubmed: 31549945
Gynecol Oncol. 2007 Jun;105(3):801-12
pubmed: 17433422
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2020 Apr;247:207-211
pubmed: 32146226
BMJ. 2015 Oct 28;351:h5527
pubmed: 26511519