ADNEX Model Research Articles

Comparison of the O-RADS and ADNEX models regarding malignancy rate and validity in evaluating adnexal lesions.

This study aimed to compare the ability of the O-RADS and ADNEX models to classify benign or malignant adnexal lesions. This retrospective single-center study included women who underwent surgery for adnexal lesions. Two gynecologists independently categorized the adnexal lesions according to the O-RADS and ADNEX models. Four additional readers were included to validate the new quick-access O-RADS flowchart. Among the 322 patients included in this study, 264 (82.0%) had a benign diagnosis, and 58 (18.0%) had a malignant diagnosis. The malignant rates of O-RADS 2, O-RADS 3, O-RADS 4, and O-RADS 5 were 0%, 3.0%, 37.7%, and 78.9%, respectively. The AUC of the O-RADS in the 322 patients was 0.93. On comparing the O-RADS and ADNEX models in the remaining 281 patients, the AUCs of the O-RADS, ADNEX model with CA125, and ADNEX model without CA125 were 0.92, 0.95, and 0.94, respectively. When setting a uniform cutoff of ≥ 10% (≥ O-RADS 4) to predict malignancy, the O-RADS had higher sensitivity than the ADNEX model (96.6% vs. 91.4%), and relatively similar specificity. In addition, the readers with the quick-access flowchart spent less time categorizing O-RADS than the readers with only the original O-RADS table (mean analysis time: 99 min 15 s vs. 111 min 55 s). The O-RADS classification of the adnexal lesions as benign or malignant was comparable to that of the ADNEX model and had higher sensitivity at the 10% cutoff value. A quick-access O-RADS flowchart was helpful in O-RADS categorization and might shorten the analysis time. • Both O-RADS and ADNEX models had good diagnostic performance in distinguishing adnexal malignancy, and O-RADS had higher sensitivity than ADNEX model in uniform 10% cutoff to predict malignancy. • Quick-access O-RADS flowchart was developed to help review O-RADS classification and might help reduce the analysis time.

Value of Assessment of Different Neoplasias in the Adnexa in the Differential Diagnosis of Malignant Ovarian Tumor and Benign Ovarian Tumor: A Meta-analysis.

To evaluate the accuracy of the assessment of different neoplasias in the adnexa (ADNEX) model in the differential diagnosis of malignant and benign ovarian tumors, the optimal cutoff value and the accuracy in diagnosing ovarian tumors at different stages, PubMed, Web of Science and Cochrane Library databases were retrieved to search literature with per-patient analysis until publication of the last study in November 2021. STATA 14.1, Meta-Disc 1.4 and Revman software 5.3 were used in the performance of meta-analysis. To explore sources of heterogeneity, a subgroup analysis was conducted for the ADNEX model. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratio, positive likelihood, negative likelihood ratio and area under the summary receiver operating characteristic curve were 0.91 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.89-0.93), 0.84 (95% CI: 0.80-0.88), 55.55 (95% CI: 40.47-76.26), 5.71 (95% CI: 4.49-7.26), 0.10 (95% CI: 0.08-0.13) and 0.94 (95% CI: 0.92-0.96) in differentiating benign and malignant ovarian tumors, respectively. The area under the curve in identifying benign, borderline, stage I and stages II-IV were 0.93, 0.73, 0.27 and 0.92. The ADNEX model had high diagnostic performance was influential in the diagnosis of benign and stage II-IV ovarian tumors.

Performance of IOTA Simple Rules, Simple Rules risk assessment, ADNEX model and O-RADS in differentiating between benign and malignant adnexal lesions in North American women.

To apply the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis (IOTA) Simple Rules (SR), the IOTA Simple Rules risk assessment (SRR), the IOTA Assessment of Different NEoplasias in the adneXa (ADNEX) model and the Ovarian-Adnexal Reporting and Data System (O-RADS) in the same cohort of North American patients and to compare their performance in preoperative discrimination between benign and malignant adnexal lesions. This was a single-center diagnostic accuracy study, performed between March 2018 and February 2021, which included 150 women with an adnexal lesion. Using the ADNEX model, lesions were classified prospectively, whereas the SR, SRR assessment and O-RADS were applied retrospectively. Surgery with histological analysis was performed within 6 months of the ultrasound exam. Sensitivity and specificity were determined for each testing modality and the performance of the different modalities was compared. Of the 150 women, 110 (73.3%) had a benign ovarian tumor and 40 (26.7%) had a malignant tumor. The mean risk of malignancy generated by the ADNEX model without CA 125 was significantly higher in malignant vs benign lesions (63.3% vs 11.8%) and the area under the receiver-operating-characteristics curve (AUC) of the ADNEX model for differentiating between benign and malignant adnexal masses at the time of ultrasound examination was 0.937. The mean risk of malignancy generated by SRR assessment was also significantly higher in malignant vs benign lesions (74.1% vs 15.9%) and the AUC was 0.941. To compare the ADNEX model, SRR assessment and O-RADS, the malignancy risk threshold was set at ≥ 10%. This cut-off differentiates O-RADS low-risk categories (Category ≤ 3) from intermediate-to-high-risk categories (Categories 4 and 5). At this cut-off, the sensitivity of the ADNEX model was 97.5% (95% CI, 85.3%-99.9%) and the specificity was 63.6% (95% CI, 53.9%-72.4%), and, for the SRR model, the sensitivity was 100% (95% CI, 89.1%-100%) and the specificity was 51.8% (95% CI, 42.1%-61.4%). In the 113 cases to which the SR could be applied, the sensitivity was 100% (95% CI, 81.5%-100%) andthe specificity was 95.6% (95% CI, 88.5%-98.6%). If the remaining 37 cases, which were inconclusive under SR, were designated 'malignant', the sensitivity remained at 100% but the specificity was reduced to 79.1% (95% CI, 70.1%-86.0%). The 150 cases fell into the following O-RADS categories: 17 (11.3%) lesions in Category 2, 34 (22.7%) in Category 3, 66 (44.0%) in Category 4 and 33 (22.0%) in Category 5. There were no histologically proven malignant lesions in Category 2 or 3. There were 14 malignant lesions in Category 4 and 26 in Category 5. The sensitivity of O-RADS using a malignancy risk threshold of ≥ 10% was 100% (95% CI, 89.1%-100.0%) and the specificity was 46.4% (95% CI, 36.9%-56.1%). When IOTA terms and techniques are used, the performance of IOTA models in a North American patient population is in line with published IOTA results in other populations. The IOTA SR, SRR assessment and ADNEX model and O-RADS have similar sensitivity in the preoperative discrimination of malignant from benign pelvic tumors; however, the IOTA models have higher specificity and the algorithm does not require the use of magnetic resonance imaging. © 2022 International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

Comparison of Ultrasound and Tumor Marker CA125 in Diagnosis of Adnexal Mass Malignancies.

Background:CA125 is the most used tumor marker for ovarian cancer monitoring and diagnosis. This study aimed to evaluate the capacity to predict malignancy in women with adnexal tumors using CA125 measurement and ultrasound criteria before the pathological examination.Materials and Methods:This observational diagnostic study was conducted on 300 patients with obvious diagnosis of adnexal mass consists of ovarian masses, fallopian tubes, and masses within the broad ligament referring to Alzahra and Beheshti Hospitals from 2018 to 2019. Ultrasound examinations were done before surgery and malignancy risk was investigated by the ADNEX criterion. Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative likelihood ratio (likelihood ratio [LR]+ and LR−), and area under the curve (AUC) were calculated.Results:From 284 patients, 260 masses were categorized in benign, 18 were in borderline, and 18 masses were malignant. The mean age of patients with malignant tumors was significantly higher than the others (P = 0.01). Differences in the level of CA-125 were not statistically significant (P = 0.78). Furthermore, the proportion of ascites in the malignant group (16.3%) was significantly higher than the others (P = 0.003). The AUC in ADNEX model (cutoff ≥9%) for differentiation of benign and malignant tumors was 0.75 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.69–0.80) with a sensitivity of 0.63 (95% CI: 0.41–0.81) and a specificity of 0.80 (95% CI: 0.74–0.84). Receiver operating characteristic analysis for CA-125 revealed that this variable is not capable for discrimination between benign and malignant tumors as the AUCs of the aforementioned variable were 0.60, 0.60, and 0.52 for the whole patients, premenopause, and postmenopause categories.Conclusion:CA-125 marker, along with other ultrasound findings, can be more accurate in identifying the malignancy of the adnexa tumor.

Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy of IOTA - ADNEX Model in Detecting the Risk of Malignancy in Ovarian Carcinomas

Background: Ovarian cancer has become a major public health issue which stood in 10th rank of mortality within India. 2.4 % is the annual new cases of ovarian cancer in overall India. In 2008 it was the seventh leading cause of cancer deaths in women worldwide. 70% of cases are diagnosed with poor prognosis at an advanced stage. Ovarian malignancy death rate is of 70% within 2 yrs and 90% within five years. It’s a tough task for a gynecologist to identify ovarian cancer correctly .Ovarian malignancy is initially detected as adnexal mass. Exploratory laparotomy or laparoscopy with histopathology is a specific diagnostic procedure for adnexal mass. This study aims to study and analyse the diagnostic accuracy of IOTA - ADNEX model in detecting the risk of malignancy in ovarian carcinomas.
 Objectives: To make pre-operative diagnosis of adnexal masses and conserve the in menstruating women with less aggressive management.
 Methodology: This prospective study will be conducted in Obstetrics & Gynaecology department of AVBRH, Wardha from September 2020 to July 2022. This will be conducted on 50 females presenting with adnexal mass. Patients will undergo transvaginal ultrasonography with HERA W10 ultra sound system with an endovaginal EA2-11B probe. The ultra sound evaluation we will include IOTA –ADNEX Model. The mass with the most complex structure will be chosen for analysis for ultrasound imaging to know the chances of being malignant.
 Expected Results: Positive correlation between the IOTA –ADNEX model and histopathological report.
 Conclusion: IOTA-ADNEX model to be incorporated for ovarian malignancy diagnostic protocol.

Application of the new classification criteria in ovarian pathology (IOTA – O-RADS)

The Ovarian-Adnexal Reporting and Data System (O-RADS) risk stratification and management system is designed to provide consistent interpretations, to decrease or eliminate ambiguity in ultrasound (US) reports, resulting in a higher accuracy in assigning the risk of malignancy for ovarian and other adnexal masses, and to provide accurate management recommendations for each risk category. It was developed by experts in radiology, gynecology, pathology and gynecologic oncology from the United States, Canada and Europe, under the supervision of the ACR (American College of Radiology). This unique system represents a collaboration between the pattern-based approach, commonly used in North America, and the widely used, European-based, algorithmic-style of the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis (IOTA) Assessment of Different Neoplasias in the Adnexa model system, a risk prediction model that has undergone successful prospective and external validation. The Ovarian-Adnexal Reporting and Data System US risk stratification and management system for evaluation of ovarian and other adnexal masses is based on a standardized lexicon, incorporates all classes of risk, and offers an associated management strategy for each risk category. US is widely considered the primary imaging modality in the evaluation of women with suspected adnexal pathology. Standardized terms and definitions to describe the sonographic features of adnexal lesions have been proposed, and several US reporting models can aid in differentiating benign from malignant adnexal masses. However, approximately 20% to 25% of adnexal masses remain indeterminate after the initial sonographic evaluation. Furthermore, studies have demonstrated variable positive predictive values for the detection of ovarian cancer using US, with certain studies showing low positive predictive values in the general population in which the incidence of ovarian cancer is low. Secondary tests such as MRI could help decrease the number of false-positive lesions when using US in certain settings and avoid unnecessary surgery in benign lesions. The ACR Ovarian-Adnexal Reporting and Data Systems (O-RADS) MRI Committee has developed an evidence-based lexicon and risk stratification system for MRI evaluation of adnexal lesions.

External Validation of the Assessment of Different NEoplasias in the adneXa Model Performance in Evaluating the Risk of Ovarian Carcinoma Before Surgery in China: A Tertiary Center Study.

The Assessment of Different NEoplasias in the adneXa (ADNEX) model was developed by the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis group to assess the risk of an ovarian mass being malignant. This study aimed to externally validate the ADNEX model performance in a tertiary center in China. This retrospective, single-center university hospital study assessed the model diagnostic accuracy. All patients were examined by transvaginal ultrasonography, and serum CA125 levels were measured. Moreover, clinicopathological information was collected. The diagnostic performance of the ADNEX model was calculated with and without CA125 as a predictor. We retrieved data of 335 patients, of which 53 were excluded based on the exclusion criteria. Of the included 282 patients, 178 (63.1%) had benign tumors, and 104 (36.9%) had malignant tumors. When CA125 was factored in, the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) for the distinction between benign and malignant tumors was 0.93 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.90-0.96), whereas it was 0.91 (95% CI, 0.88-0.95) without CA125. The concordance between the predicted risk of malignancy and the proportion of observed malignancies was well demonstrated by the calibration plots. The proper performance of the ADNEX model was verified externally in a tertiary center in China, showing a good distinction between tumour subtypes. Our findings suggest the ADNEX model is a valuable tool in clinical practice and may help in managing patients with adnexal masses.

Estimating the risk of malignancy of adnexal masses: validation of the ADNEX model in the hands of nonexpert ultrasonographers in a gynaecological oncology centre in China

BackgroundThis study aims to validate the diagnostic accuracy of the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis (IOTA) the Assessment of Different NEoplasias in the adneXa (ADNEX) model in the preoperative diagnosis of adnexal masses in the hands of nonexpert ultrasonographers in a gynaecological oncology centre in China.MethodsThis was a single oncology centre, retrospective diagnostic accuracy study of 620 patients. All patients underwent surgery, and the histopathological diagnosis was used as a reference standard. The masses were divided into five types according to the ADNEX model: benign ovarian tumours, borderline ovarian tumours (BOTs), stage I ovarian cancer (OC), stage II-IV OC and ovarian metastasis. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was used to evaluate the ability of the ADNEX model to classify tumours into different histological types with and without cancer antigen 125 (CA 125) results.ResultsOf the 620 women, 402 (64.8%) had a benign ovarian tumour and 218 (35.2%) had a malignant ovarian tumour, including 86 (13.9%) with BOT, 75 (12.1%) with stage I OC, 53 (8.5%) with stage II-IV OC and 4 (0.6%) with ovarian metastasis. The AUC of the model to differentiate benign and malignant adnexal masses was 0.97 (95% CI, 0.96–0.98). Performance was excellent for the discrimination between benign and stage II-IV OC and between benign and ovarian metastasis, with AUCs of 0.99 (95% CI, 0.99–1.00) and 0.99 (95% CI, 0.98–1.00), respectively. The model was less effective at distinguishing between BOT and stage I OC and between BOT and ovarian metastasis, with AUCs of 0.54 (95% CI, 0.45–0.64) and 0.66 (95% CI, 0.56–0.77), respectively. When including CA125 in the model, the performance in discriminating between stage II–IV OC and stage I OC and between stage II–IV OC ovarian metastasis was improved (AUC increased from 0.88 to 0.94, P = 0.01, and from 0.86 to 0.97, p = 0.01).ConclusionsThe IOTA ADNEX model has excellent performance in differentiating benign and malignant adnexal masses in the hands of nonexpert ultrasonographers with limited experience in China. In classifying different subtypes of ovarian cancers, the model has difficulty differentiating BOTs from stage I OC and BOTs from ovarian metastases.

Ovarian Masses-Applicable IOTA ADNEX Model versus Morphological Findings for Accurate Diagnosis and Treatment

A common problem in gynecological practice is the differential diagnosis of the ovarian masses. The clinician must apply the IOTA (International Ovarian Tumor Analysis) ADNEX (Assessment of Different Neoplasia in the Adnexa) model criteria to evaluate the risk of benign, borderline or malignant tumors. The aim of this study was to verify if the IOTA ADNEX model is a practical tool to be used before surgery and if there is a significant difference between IOTA ADNEX criteria and histological findings. A prospective single center study was performed between January 2017 and December 2019 in Obstetrics and Gynecology Hospital “Cuza-Voda”, Iasi, Romania. The study included 230 patients between 17 and 74 years old diagnosed with persistent adnexal masses. We applied the IOTA ADNEX model protocol predicting the risk of benign, borderline or malignant masses. The golden standard remains the histological diagnosis of the surgically removed mass. The patients that had been diagnosed using ultrasonography with persistent adnexal masses between 30 and 291 mm were operated on in our clinic. In our study. the majority of patients had benign ovarian tumor mass, these being 223 (96.96%) patients, from whom, according to IOTA ADNEX protocol, the correspondence was: 91.8–99.7% at risk of benign tumors, 0.3–4.5% at risk of borderline tumors and 0.3–8.2% at risk of malignant masses. Unexpected findings were obtained from the malignant group that included five patients (2.17%) with the following correspondence: 96.1–99% at risk of benign tumors, 0.6–2.4% at risk of borderline tumors and 1–3.9% at risk of malignant masses. After applying the IOTA ADNEX model criteria, the patients with a suspicion of malignant disease were correctly guided towards surgical treatment in an oncological center. In our hospital, surgical treatment was only proposed to those patients with high suspicion of benign masses.

Conservative Management of Asymptomatic Adnexal Masses Classified as Benign by the IOTA ADNEX Model: A Prospective Multicenter Portuguese Study

This prospective multicentric study aiming to determine the incidence of complications (malignant transformation, torsion or rupture) during conservative management of adnexal masses was performed in two Portuguese tertiary referral hospitals. It included ≥18-year-old, non-pregnant patients with asymptomatic adnexal masses (associated IOTA ADNEX risk of malignancy < 10%) sonographically diagnosed between January 2016 and December 2020. Conservative patient management consisted of serial clinical and ultrasound assessment up to 60 months of follow-up, spontaneous resolution of the formation or surgical excision (median follow-up: 17.8; range 9–48 months). From the 573 masses monitored (328 premenopausal and 245 postmenopausal adnexal masses), no complications were observed in 99.5%. The annual lesion growth rates and increases in morphological complexity were similar in the premenopausal and postmenopausal patients. Spontaneous resolution, evidenced in 16.4% of the patients, was more common in the premenopausal group (p < 0.05). Surgical intervention was performed in 18.4% of the cases; one borderline and one invasive FIGO IA stage cancer were diagnosed. There was an isolated case of ovary torsion (0.17%). These data support conservative management as a safe option for sonographically benign, stable and asymptomatic adnexal masses before and after menopause and highlight the need for expedite treatment of symptomatic or increased-morphological-complexity lesions.

VP04.19: Diagnostic performance of ADNEX model in pre‐ and postmenopausal ovarian tumours

VP04.19: Diagnostic performance of ADNEX model in pre‐ and postmenopausal ovarian tumours

VP04.08: Performance of the IOTA ADNEX model in distinguishing types of ovarian malignancy: a Portuguese multicentre study

VP04.08: Performance of the IOTA ADNEX model in distinguishing types of ovarian malignancy: a Portuguese multicentre study

VP04.17: Comparison of performance between IOTA Simple Rules, IOTA ADNEX model and O‐RADS in the discrimination of adnexal masses in an oncology centre

VP04.17: Comparison of performance between IOTA Simple Rules, IOTA ADNEX model and O‐RADS in the discrimination of adnexal masses in an oncology centre

Evaluation of the Diagnostic Value of the Ultrasound ADNEX Model for Benign and Malignant Ovarian Tumors.

ObjectiveTo investigate the diagnostic performance of the ADNEX model in the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis diagnostic models for ovarian tumors and further explore its application value in the staging of ovarian tumors.MethodsA total of 224 patients who underwent ultrasound for evaluation of adnexal masses and were treated surgically owing to adnexal masses from January 2018 to June 2020 in our hospital were selected for research on the diagnostic accuracy of the ADNEX model. The clinical information and ultrasonographic findings of the patients were collected, and the pathological diagnosis was taken as the gold standard. According to the ADNEX model, the ovarian tumors were divided into five subtypes: benign and borderline, stage I, stage II–IV, and metastatic cancer. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, diagnostic odds ratio, and area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUC) of the ADNEX model were calculated.ResultsOf the 224 patients, 119 (53.1%) developed benign tumors and 105 (46.9%) had malignant tumors. When the cut-off value for malignancy risk was 10%, the ADNEX model including CA 125 achieved a sensitivity of 94.3% (95% CI: 88.0–97.9%), specificity of 74.0% (95% CI: 65.1–81.6%), positive predictive value of 76.2% (95% CI: 70.2–81.3%), negative predictive value of 93.6% (95% CI: 87.0–97.0%), diagnostic odds ratio of 45.25, and an AUC of 0.94 (95% CI: 0.90–0.97) for differentiating between benign and malignant ovarian tumors. The AUC in the model excluding CA 125 was 0.93 (95% CI: 0.89–0.96), but the difference was not statistically significant (P=0.20). The accuracy of the ADNEX model for the diagnosis of ovarian tumors of all subtypes exceeds 80% when CA 125 measurements were included in the application, but the sensitivity for diagnosing borderline, stage I, and metastatic ovarian tumors was only 60.0% (95% CI:36.1–80.9%), 28.6% (95% CI:8.4–58.1%) and 45.5% (95% CI:16.7–76.6%).ConclusionThe ADNEX model shows good diagnostic performance in differentiating between benign and malignant ovarian tumors. The model has a certain clinical value in the diagnosis of all subtypes of ovarian tumors, but the sensitivity is unsatisfactory for the diagnosis of borderline, stage I, and metastatic ovarian tumors and needs to be verified.

Comparison of the Diagnostic Performances of Ultrasound-Based Models for Predicting Malignancy in Patients With Adnexal Masses.

AimThis 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.MethodsThis single-centre diagnostic accuracy study 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 curves, sensitivities, specificities, positive and negative predictive values, positive and negative likelihood ratios, and diagnostic odds ratios.ResultsTo discriminate benign and malignant tumors, 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.ConclusionADNEX and SRs models were excellent at characterising adnexal masses which were superior to the RMI in Chinese patients.

Two-Step Strategy for Optimizing the Preoperative Classification of Adnexal Masses in a University Hospital, Using International Ovarian Tumor Analysis Models: Simple Rules and Assessment of Different NEoplasias in the adneXa Model.

To evaluate the performance of a two-step strategy compared with the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis (IOTA) - Assessment of Different NEoplasias in the adneXa (ADNEX) model for preoperative classification of adnexal masses. An ambispective diagnostic accuracy study based on ultrasound data collected at one university hospital between 2012 and 2018. Two ultrasonographers classified the adnexal masses using IOTA Simple Rules (first step). Not classifiable masses were evaluated using the IOTA ADNEX model (second step). Also, all masses were classified using the IOTA ADNEX model. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV), positive likelihood ratio (LR+) and negative likelihood ratio (LR-), and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve were estimated. A P value of <.05 was used to determine statistical significance. The study included 548 patients and 606 masses. Patients' median age was 41 years with an interquartile range between 32 and 51 years. In the first step, 89 (14%) masses were not classifiable. In the second step, 55 (61.8%) masses were classified as malignant. Furthermore, for the totality of 606 masses, the IOTA ADNEX model estimated the probability that 126 (20.8%) masses were malignant. The two-step strategy had a sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, LR+, LR-, and ROC curve of 86.8%, 91.01%, 51.9%, 98.4%, 9.7, 0.1, and 0.889, respectively; compared to IOTA ADNEX model that had values of 91.8%, 87.16%, 44.4%, 99%, 7.1, 0.09, and 0.895, respectively. The two-step strategy shows a similar diagnostic performance when compared to the IOTA ADNEX model. The IOTA ADNEX model involves only one step and can be more practical, and thus would be recommended to use.

Ovarian sex cord stromal tumours: analysis of the clinical and sonographic characteristics of different histopathologic subtypes

BackgroundOvarian sex cord stromal tumours (OSCSTs) are rare ovarian tumours and include different histopathologic subtypes. This study aimed to analyse the clinical and sonographic characteristics of different histopathologic OSCST subtypes.MethodsA total of 63 patients with surgically proven OSCSTs were enrolled in this retrospective study to analyse their clinical and sonographic features. Ultrasound examinations and predictive models were performed before surgery. The clinical and sonographic findings were compared according to the type of OSCST based on the histopathological diagnosis.ResultsThe mean age of 63 patients was 52.17 years (range: 17–78 years). Eighteen patients experienced irregular vaginal bleeding (28.57% 18/63), 7 patients exhibited abnormal body hair (11.11%). 2 patients (3.17%) showed an increased level of CA125, and 25 patients (39.68%, 25/63) showed an increased level of testosterone. Forty-two patients had ovarian thecoma-fibroma groups (OTFGs). Six patients had Sertoli-Leydig cell tumours (S-LCTs), 4 patients had Leydig cell tumours (LCTs), 8 patients had ovarian granulosa cell tumours (OGCTs), 2 patients had ovarian steroid cell tumours, not otherwise specified (OSCTs-NOS), and one patient had sclerosing stromal tumours (SSTs). The mean diameter of the tumour was 47.9 mm (range: 10–258 mm). Forty-seven masses were hypoechoic (74.60%). Twenty-eight masses had posterior echo attenuation, 22 masses exhibited abundant Doppler flow signals (34.92%), and one patient had ascites (1.59%). The diagnostic accuracy of the Simple Rules (SR) and the Assessment of Different NEoplasias in the adneXa (ADNEX) model in distinguishing benign and malignant OSCSTs was 44% (30/63) and 84% (53/63), respectively. The diagnostic accuracy of the SR for OTFGs, S-LCTs & LCTs & OSCTs-NOS, OGCTs, and SSTs was 47.6% (20/42), 16.67% (2/12), 100% (8/8), and 0% (0/1), respectively. The diagnostic accuracy of the ADNEX model for OTFGs, S-LCTs & LCTs & OSCTs-NOS, OGCTs, and SSTs was 93% (31/42), 58.33% (7/12), 75% (6/8), and 100% (1/1), respectively.ConclusionsOSCSTs generally appear as a solid mass on ultrasound. Posterior echo attenuation indicates an OTFG. A solid mass with abundant Doppler flow signals indicates an S-LCT, LCT, OSCT-NOS or OGCT. Current predictive models are not very effective, but symptoms, sonographic features and serum hormones are helpful for diagnosis.

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: 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.

Assessment of different NEoplasias in the adneXa model for differentiation of benign and malignant adnexal masses in Korean women.

ObjectiveUltrasonographic differential diagnosis of ovarian tumors is important for appropriate management. We conducted study to compare the performance of the Assessment of Different NEoplasias in the adneXa (ADNEX) model with a subjective assessment (SA) in differentiating between benign and malignant adnexal masses in Korean women.MethodsA total of 353 patients who underwent adnexal surgery with abnormal pelvic ultrasonographic findings from August 2016 to August 2017 were included in study. The presumptive diagnosis of adnexal malignancy was determined by both SA and the ADNEX model to be >10% calculated risk of malignancy. The area under the curve (AUC) comparison between the SA and ADNEX models was performed using DeLong’s method.Results340 patients with benign tumors and 13 with malignant adnexal tumors among 292 (82.72%) premenopausal and 61 (17.28%) postmenopausal women were included. The AUCs of SA and the ADNEX model for discrimination between benign and malignant tumors were 0.79 and 0.92, respectively (P=0.10). The sensitivity and specificity of SA and the ADNEX model were 83.5% and 97.0%, and 90.0% and 82.0%, respectively. Comparison of the ADNEX model regarding menopausal status revealed that the predictability was not different. The AUCs of SA and the ADNEX model in premenopausal women were 0.74 and 0.89, respectively (P=0.12). The AUCs of SA and the ADNEX model in postmenopausal women were 0.86 and 0.94, respectively (P=0.60).ConclusionThe ADNEX model offers excellent discrimination between benign and malignant ovarian tumors with similar sensitivity and specificity to SA in both premenopausal and postmenopausal Korean women.

Preoperative Evaluation of the ADNEX Model for the Prediction of the Ovarian Cancer Risk of Adnexal Masses at Siriraj Hospital

Introduction: Distinguishing benign adnexal masses from malignant tumors plays an important role in preoperative planning and improving patients’ survival rates. The International Ovarian Tumor Analysis (IOTA) group developed a model termed the Assessment of Different NEoplasias in the adneXa (ADNEX). Objective: Our objective was to evaluate the performance of the ADNEX model in distinguishing between benign and malignant tumors at a cutoff value of 10%. Methods: This was a prospective diagnostic study. 357 patients with an adnexal mass who were scheduled for surgery at Siriraj Hospital were included from May 1, 2018, to May 30, 2019. All patients were undergoing ultrasonography, and serum CA125 was measured. Data were calculated by the ADNEX model via an IOTA ADNEX calculator. Results: Of the 357 patients, 296 had benign tumors and 61 had malignant tumors. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for using the ADNEX model was 0.975 (95% confidence interval, 0.953–0.988). At a 10% cutoff, the sensitivity was 98.4% and specificity was 87.2%. The best cutoff value was at 16.6% in our population. Conclusions: The performance of the ADNEX model in differentiating benign and malignant tumors was excellent.