scholarly journals OP15.06: Performance of RMI, IOTA ADNEX and simple rules risk model in the assessment of adnexal masses not classifiable using the revised benign easy descriptors as first step: a novel two-step strategy

2017 ◽  
Vol 50 ◽  
pp. 97-98
Author(s):  
C. Landolfo ◽  
W. Froyman ◽  
T. Bourne ◽  
B. De Cock ◽  
A.C. Testa ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Model ◽  
Adnexal Masses ◽  
Simple Rules

scholarly journals Sonographic Assessment of Complex Ultrasound Morphology in Pregnant Women with the Use of IOTA Simple Rules Risk and ADNEX Scoring Systems

Diagnostics ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. 414
Author(s):  
Artur Czekierdowski ◽  
Norbert Stachowicz ◽  
Agata Smoleń ◽  
Tomasz Kluz ◽  
Tomasz Łoziński ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pregnant Women ◽  
Risk Model ◽  
Malignant Tumors ◽  
Scoring Systems ◽  
Subjective Assessment ◽  
Risk Level ◽  
Likelihood Ratios ◽  
Predictive Values ◽  
Adnexal Masses ◽  
Simple Rules

Background: To evaluate the accuracy of subjective assessment (SA), the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis (IOTA) group Simple Rules Risk (SRR) and the Assessment of Different NEoplasias in the adneXa (ADNEX) model for the preoperative differentiation of adnexal masses in pregnant women. Methods: The study population comprised 36 pregnant women (median age: 28.5 years old, range: 20–42 years old) with a mean gestation age of 13.5 (range: 8–31) weeks at diagnosis. Tumors were prospectively classified by local sonographers as probably benign or probably malignant using SA. Final tumor histological diagnosis was used as the reference standard in all cases. Logistic regression SRR and ADNEX models were used to obtain a risk score for every case. Serum CA125 and human epidydimis protein 4 (HE4) concentrations were also retrieved and the Risk of Ovarian Malignancy Algorithm (ROMA) value was calculated. The calculated predictive values included positive and negative likelihood ratios of ultrasound and biochemical tests. Results: Final histology confirmed 27 benign and 9 malignant (including 2 borderline) masses. The highest sensitivity (89%) and specificity (70%) were found for the subjective tumor assessment. Although no malignancy was classified as benign using the SRR criteria (sensitivity = 100%), the specificity of this scoring system was only 37%. At the cut-off risk level of >20%, the ADNEX model had a sensitivity of 78% and a specificity of 70%. Serum levels of CA125, HE4 and the ROMA risk model correctly identified adnexal malignant tumors with a sensitivity of 67%, 25% and 25%, respectively. Corresponding specificities were 72%, 100% and 100%, respectively. The highest positive and negative likelihood ratios were found for SA (LR+ = 3.0 and LR− = 0.16, respectively). Overall diagnostic accuracy of all predictive methods used in this study were similar (range: 70–75%) except for SRR (53%). Conclusion: Subjective assessment remains the best predictive method in complex adnexal masses found at prenatal ultrasound in pregnant women. For less experienced sonographers, both the SRR and ADNEX scoring systems may be also used for the characterization of such tumors, while serum tumor markers CA125 and HE4, along with the ROMA algorithm appear to be less accurate.

Comparison of the diagnostic performances of the Assessment of Different NEoplasias in the adneXa model, Simple Rules model, and Risk of Malignancy Index for adnexal masses in a gynecological oncology centre  in China

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Le Qian ◽  
Qinwen Du ◽  
Meijiao Jiang ◽  
Fei Yuan ◽  
Hui Chen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prediction Models ◽  
Roc Curves ◽  
Chinese Patients ◽  
Malignant Tumours ◽  
Likelihood Ratios ◽  
Predictive Values ◽  
Adnexal Masses ◽  
Simple Rules ◽  
Risk Of Malignancy ◽  
Risk Of Malignancy Index

Abstract Background This study aimed to compare different ultrasound-based International Ovarian Tumor Analysis (IOTA) prediction models, namely, the Simple Rules (SRs) the Assessment of Different NEoplasias in the adneXa (ADNEX) models, and the Risk of Malignancy Index (RMI), for the pre-operative diagnosis of adnexal mass. Methods This single-centre, retrospective study of diagnostic accuracy involved 486 patients. All ultrasound examinations were analyzed and the prediction models were applied. Pathology was the clinical reference standard. The diagnostic performances of prediction models were measured by evaluating receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curves, sensitivities, specificities, positive and negative predictive values, positive and negative likelihood ratios, and diagnostic odds ratios. Results To discriminate benign and malignant tumours, areas under the ROC curves (AUCs) for ADNEX models were 0.94 (95% CI: 0.92–0.96) with CA125 and 0.94 (95% CI: 0.91–0.96) without CA125, which were significantly higher than the AUCs for RMI I-III: 0.87 (95% CI: 0.83–0.90), 0.83 (95% CI: 0.80–0.86), and 0.82 (95% CI: 0.78–0.86), (all P < 0.0001). At a cut-off of 10%, the ADNEX model with CA125 had the highest sensitivity (0.93; 95% CI: 0.87–0.97) compared with the other models. The SRs model achieved a sensitivity of 0.93 (95% CI: 0.86–0.97) and a specificity of 0.86 (95% CI: 0.82–0.89) when inconclusive diagnoses (11.7%) were classified as malignant. Conclusion ADNEX and SRs models were excellent at characterising adnexal masses which were superior to the RMI in Chinese patients.

scholarly journals VP61.02: ROMA index versus ultrasound expert evaluation for detecting malignancy in adnexal masses classified as inconclusive by IOTA Simple Rules

2020 ◽  
Vol 56 (S1) ◽  
pp. 331-331
Author(s):  
J. Alcazar ◽  
E. Chacon ◽  
J. Minguez ◽  
N. Manzour ◽  
I. Carriles ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Expert Evaluation ◽  
Adnexal Masses ◽  
Simple Rules

scholarly journals VP59.48: Two‐step strategy to optimise the preoperative classification of adnexal masses in a university hospital, using IOTA models: Simple Rules and ADNEX

2020 ◽  
Vol 56 (S1) ◽  
pp. 326-327
Author(s):  
A. Esquivel ◽  
N. Rodríguez ◽  
N. Ayala ◽  
C. Buriticá ◽  
A.C. Gómez ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
University Hospital ◽  
Adnexal Masses ◽  
Simple Rules
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document