Literature DB >> 23360924

A comparison between an ultrasound based prediction model (LR2) and the risk of ovarian malignancy algorithm (ROMA) to assess the risk of malignancy in women with an adnexal mass.

Jeroen Kaijser1, Toon Van Gorp, Kirsten Van Hoorde, Caroline Van Holsbeke, Ahmad Sayasneh, Ignace Vergote, Tom Bourne, Dirk Timmerman, Ben Van Calster.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The identification of novel biomarkers led to the development of the ROMA algorithm incorporating both HE4 and CA125 to predict malignancy in women with a pelvic mass. An ultrasound based prediction model (LR2) developed by the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis (IOTA) study offers better diagnostic performance than CA125 alone. In this study we compared the diagnostic accuracy between LR2 and ROMA.
METHODS: This study included women with a pelvic mass scheduled for surgery and enrolled in a previous prospective diagnostic accuracy study. Experienced ultrasound examiners, general gynecologists and trainees supervised by one of the experts performed the preoperative transvaginal ultrasound examinations. Serum biomarkers were taken prior to surgery. Accuracy of LR2 and ROMA was estimated at completion of this study and did not form part of the decision making process. Final outcome was histology of removed tissues and surgical stage if relevant.
RESULTS: In total 360 women were evaluated. 216 women had benign disease and 144 a malignancy. Overall test performance of LR2 (AUC 0.952) with 94% sensitivity and 82% specificity was significantly better than ROMA (AUC 0.893) with 84% sensitivity and 80% specificity. Difference in AUC was 0.059 (95% CI: 0.026-0.091; P-value 0.0004). Similar results were obtained when stratified for menopausal status.
CONCLUSION: LR2 shows a better diagnostic performance than ROMA for the characterization of a pelvic mass in both pre- and postmenopausal women. These findings suggest that HE4 and CA125 may not play an important role in the diagnosis of ovarian cancer if good quality ultrasonography is available.
Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23360924     DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2013.01.018

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Gynecol Oncol        ISSN: 0090-8258            Impact factor:   5.482


  12 in total

1.  Ultrasound-based logistic regression model LR2 versus magnetic resonance imaging for discriminating between benign and malignant adnexal masses: a prospective study.

Authors:  Kanane Shimada; Koji Matsumoto; Takashi Mimura; Tetsuya Ishikawa; Jiro Munechika; Yoshimitsu Ohgiya; Miki Kushima; Yusuke Hirose; Yuka Asami; Chiaki Iitsuka; Shingo Miyamoto; Mamiko Onuki; Hajime Tsunoda; Ryu Matsuoka; Kiyotake Ichizuka; Akihiko Sekizawa
Journal:  Int J Clin Oncol       Date:  2017-12-13       Impact factor: 3.402

Review 2.  The emerging role of HE4 in the evaluation of epithelial ovarian and endometrial carcinomas.

Authors:  Archana R Simmons; Keith Baggerly; Robert C Bast
Journal:  Oncology (Williston Park)       Date:  2013-06       Impact factor: 2.990

3.  Diagnostic accuracy of serum HE4, CA125 and ROMA in patients with ovarian cancer: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Jiwen Wang; Jia Gao; Hongwen Yao; Zongyong Wu; Minjie Wang; Jun Qi
Journal:  Tumour Biol       Date:  2014-03-14

Review 4.  In 2014, can we do better than CA125 in the early detection of ovarian cancer?

Authors:  Joshua G Cohen; Matthew White; Ana Cruz; Robin Farias-Eisner
Journal:  World J Biol Chem       Date:  2014-08-26

5.  Towards an evidence-based approach for diagnosis and management of adnexal masses: findings of the International Ovarian Tumour Analysis (IOTA) studies.

Authors:  J Kaijser
Journal:  Facts Views Vis Obgyn       Date:  2015

6.  Diagnostic usefulness of the Risk of Ovarian Malignancy Algorithm using the electrochemiluminescence immunoassay for HE4 and the chemiluminescence microparticle immunoassay for CA125.

Authors:  Anita Chudecka-Głaz; Aneta Cymbaluk-Płoska; Katarzyna Luterek-Puszyńska; Janusz Menkiszak
Journal:  Oncol Lett       Date:  2016-08-29       Impact factor: 2.967

7.  Comment on: Case report of ovarian torsion mimicking ovarian cancer as an uncommon late complication of laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy.

Authors:  Artur Czekierdowski
Journal:  Prz Menopauzalny       Date:  2017-04-26

Review 8.  Ultrasound Monitoring of Extant Adnexal Masses in the Era of Type 1 and Type 2 Ovarian Cancers: Lessons Learned From Ovarian Cancer Screening Trials.

Authors:  Eleanor L Ormsby; Edward J Pavlik; John P McGahan
Journal:  Diagnostics (Basel)       Date:  2017-04-28

9.  Strategies to diagnose ovarian cancer: new evidence from phase 3 of the multicentre international IOTA study.

Authors:  A Testa; J Kaijser; L Wynants; D Fischerova; C Van Holsbeke; D Franchi; L Savelli; E Epstein; A Czekierdowski; S Guerriero; R Fruscio; F P G Leone; I Vergote; T Bourne; L Valentin; B Van Calster; D Timmerman
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2014-06-17       Impact factor: 7.640

10.  Distinguishing benign from malignant pelvic mass utilizing an algorithm with HE4, menopausal status, and ultrasound findings.

Authors:  Sarikapan Wilailak; Karen K L Chan; Chi An Chen; Joo Hyun Nam; Kazunori Ochiai; Tar Choon Aw; Subathra Sabaratnam; Sudarshan Hebbar; Jaganathan Sickan; Beth A Schodin; Chuenkamon Charakorn; Walfrido W Sumpaico
Journal:  J Gynecol Oncol       Date:  2014-10-13       Impact factor: 4.401

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.