Cargando…
Sonographic Assessment of Complex Ultrasound Morphology Adnexal Tumors in Pregnant Women with the Use of IOTA Simple Rules Risk and ADNEX Scoring Systems
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:...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
MDPI
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7997447/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33671023 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics11030414 |
_version_ | 1783670330877804544 |
---|---|
author | Czekierdowski, Artur Stachowicz, Norbert Smoleń, Agata Kluz, Tomasz Łoziński, Tomasz Miturski, Andrzej Kraczkowski, Janusz |
author_facet | Czekierdowski, Artur Stachowicz, Norbert Smoleń, Agata Kluz, Tomasz Łoziński, Tomasz Miturski, Andrzej Kraczkowski, Janusz |
author_sort | Czekierdowski, Artur |
collection | PubMed |
description | 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. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7997447 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | MDPI |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-79974472021-03-27 Sonographic Assessment of Complex Ultrasound Morphology Adnexal Tumors in Pregnant Women with the Use of IOTA Simple Rules Risk and ADNEX Scoring Systems Czekierdowski, Artur Stachowicz, Norbert Smoleń, Agata Kluz, Tomasz Łoziński, Tomasz Miturski, Andrzej Kraczkowski, Janusz Diagnostics (Basel) Article 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. MDPI 2021-02-28 /pmc/articles/PMC7997447/ /pubmed/33671023 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics11030414 Text en © 2021 by the authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) ). |
spellingShingle | Article Czekierdowski, Artur Stachowicz, Norbert Smoleń, Agata Kluz, Tomasz Łoziński, Tomasz Miturski, Andrzej Kraczkowski, Janusz Sonographic Assessment of Complex Ultrasound Morphology Adnexal Tumors in Pregnant Women with the Use of IOTA Simple Rules Risk and ADNEX Scoring Systems |
title | Sonographic Assessment of Complex Ultrasound Morphology Adnexal Tumors in Pregnant Women with the Use of IOTA Simple Rules Risk and ADNEX Scoring Systems |
title_full | Sonographic Assessment of Complex Ultrasound Morphology Adnexal Tumors in Pregnant Women with the Use of IOTA Simple Rules Risk and ADNEX Scoring Systems |
title_fullStr | Sonographic Assessment of Complex Ultrasound Morphology Adnexal Tumors in Pregnant Women with the Use of IOTA Simple Rules Risk and ADNEX Scoring Systems |
title_full_unstemmed | Sonographic Assessment of Complex Ultrasound Morphology Adnexal Tumors in Pregnant Women with the Use of IOTA Simple Rules Risk and ADNEX Scoring Systems |
title_short | Sonographic Assessment of Complex Ultrasound Morphology Adnexal Tumors in Pregnant Women with the Use of IOTA Simple Rules Risk and ADNEX Scoring Systems |
title_sort | sonographic assessment of complex ultrasound morphology adnexal tumors in pregnant women with the use of iota simple rules risk and adnex scoring systems |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7997447/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33671023 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics11030414 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT czekierdowskiartur sonographicassessmentofcomplexultrasoundmorphologyadnexaltumorsinpregnantwomenwiththeuseofiotasimplerulesriskandadnexscoringsystems AT stachowicznorbert sonographicassessmentofcomplexultrasoundmorphologyadnexaltumorsinpregnantwomenwiththeuseofiotasimplerulesriskandadnexscoringsystems AT smolenagata sonographicassessmentofcomplexultrasoundmorphologyadnexaltumorsinpregnantwomenwiththeuseofiotasimplerulesriskandadnexscoringsystems AT kluztomasz sonographicassessmentofcomplexultrasoundmorphologyadnexaltumorsinpregnantwomenwiththeuseofiotasimplerulesriskandadnexscoringsystems AT łozinskitomasz sonographicassessmentofcomplexultrasoundmorphologyadnexaltumorsinpregnantwomenwiththeuseofiotasimplerulesriskandadnexscoringsystems AT miturskiandrzej sonographicassessmentofcomplexultrasoundmorphologyadnexaltumorsinpregnantwomenwiththeuseofiotasimplerulesriskandadnexscoringsystems AT kraczkowskijanusz sonographicassessmentofcomplexultrasoundmorphologyadnexaltumorsinpregnantwomenwiththeuseofiotasimplerulesriskandadnexscoringsystems |