Evaluation of IOTA-ADNEX Model and Simple Rules for Identifying Adnexal Masses by Operators with Varying Levels of Expertise: A Single-Center Diagnostic Accuracy Study

 

 Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Objectives The discrimination of ovarian lesions presents a significant problem in everyday clinical practice with ultrasonography appearing to be the most effective diagnostic technique. The aim of our study was to externally evaluate the performance of different diagnostic models when applied by examiners with various levels of experience.

Methods This was a diagnostic accuracy study including women who were admitted for adnexal masses, between July 2018 and April 2021, to a Greek tertiary oncology center. Preoperatively sonographic data were evaluated by an expert gynecologist, a 6^th and a 1^st year gynecology resident, who applied the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis (IOTA) Simple Rules (SR) and Assessment of Different NEoplasias in the adneXa (ADNEX) model to discriminate between benign and malignant ovarian tumors. The explant pathology report was used as the reference diagnosis. Kappa statistics were used for the investigation of the level of agreement between the examined systems and the raters.

Results We included 66 women, 39 with benign and 27 with malignant ovarian tumors. ADNEX (with and without “CA-125”) had high sensitivity (96–100%) when applied by all raters but a rather low specificity (36%) when applied by the 1st year resident. SR could not be applied in 6% to 17% of the cases. It had slightly lower sensitivity, higher specificity, and higher overall accuracy, especially when applied by the 1st year resident (61% vs. 92%), compared to ADNEX.

Conclusion Both ADNEX and SR can be utilized for screening in non-oncology centers since they offer high sensitivity even when used by less experienced examiners. In the hands of inexperienced examiners, SR appears to be the best model for assessing ovarian lesions.

Publication History

Received: 10 April 2022

Accepted after revision: 02 February 2023

Article published online:
23 August 2023

© 2023. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial-License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

• References

• 1 Forstner R. Early detection of ovarian cancer. Eur Radiol 2020; 30: 5370-5373
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 2 Meys EM. et al. Subjective assessment versus ultrasound models to diagnose ovarian cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Cancer 2016; 58: 17-29
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 3 Van Holsbeke C. et al. Prospective internal validation of mathematical models to predict malignancy in adnexal masses: results from the international ovarian tumor analysis study. Clin Cancer Res 2009; 15: 684-691
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 4 Timmerman D. et al Simple ultrasound-based rules for the diagnosis of ovarian cancer. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2008; 31: 681-690
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 5 Van Calster B. et al Evaluating the risk of ovarian cancer before surgery using the ADNEX model to differentiate between benign, borderline, early and advanced stage invasive, and secondary metastatic tumours: prospective multicentre diagnostic study. BMJ 2014; 349: g5920
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 6 Bossuyt PM. et al STARD 2015: An updated list of essential items for reporting diagnostic accuracy studies. Radiology 2015; 277: 826-32
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 7 Van Calster B. et al Practical guidance for applying the ADNEX model from the IOTA group to discriminate between different subtypes of adnexal tumors. Facts Views Vis Obgyn 2015; 7: 32-41
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 8 DiMaggio C. SAS for Epidemiologists: Applications and Methods. New York: Springer; 2013: xvii, 258
  CrossrefGoogle Scholar
• 9 SAS Institute. SAS Home Page. 2014; Available from: http://www.sas.com
  PubMed
• 10 Landis JR, Koch GG. An application of hierarchical kappa-type statistics in the assessment of majority agreement among multiple observers. Biometrics 1977; 33: 363-374
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 11 Raghavachari M. Measures of Concordance for Assessing Agreement in Ratings and Rank Order Data, in Advances in Ranking and Selection, Multiple Comparisons, and Reliability, Balakrishnan N, Nagaraja HN, and Kannan N, Editors. Birkhäuser; Boston: 2005: 245-263
  Google Scholar
• 12 Christensen JT, Boldsen JL, Westergaard JG. Functional ovarian cysts in premenopausal and gynecologically healthy women. Contraception 2002; 66: 153-157
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 13 Dørum A. et al Prevalence and histologic diagnosis of adnexal cysts in postmenopausal women: an autopsy study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2005; 192: 48-54
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 14 Pérez-López FR, Chedraui P, Troyano-Luque JM. Peri- and post-menopausal incidental adnexal masses and the risk of sporadic ovarian malignancy: new insights and clinical management. Gynecol Endocrinol 2010; 26: 631-643
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 15 Sayasneh A. et al Evaluating the risk of ovarian cancer before surgery using the ADNEX model: a multicentre external validation study. Br J Cancer 2016; 115: 542-548
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 16 Araujo KG. et al Performance of the IOTA ADNEX model in preoperative discrimination of adnexal masses in a gynecological oncology center. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2017; 49: 778-783
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 17 Hiett AK. et al 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. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2022; 59: 668-676
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 18 Jeong SY. et al Validation of IOTA-ADNEX model in discriminating characteristics of adnexal masses: A comparison with subjective assessment. J Clin Med 2020; 9: 6
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 19 Tavoraitė I, Kronlachner L, Opolskienė G. et al Ultrasound Assessment of Adnexal Pathology: Standardized Methods and Different Levels of Experience. Medicina (Kaunas) 2021; 57: 708 DOI: 10.3390/medicina57070708.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 20 Ning CP. et al Association between the sonographer's experience and diagnostic performance of IOTA simple rules. World J Surg Oncol 2018; 16: 179
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 21 Nunes N. et al Use of IOTA simple rules for diagnosis of ovarian cancer: meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2014; 44: 503-514
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 22 Lam JH. et al Why clinicians overtest: development of a thematic framework. BMC Health Services Research 2020; 20: 1
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 23 Fathallah K. et al External validation of simple ultrasound rules of Timmerman on 122 ovarian tumors. Gynecol Obstet Fertil 2011; 39: 477-481
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 24 Timmerman D. et al Simple ultrasound rules to distinguish between benign and malignant adnexal masses before surgery: prospective validation by IOTA group. BMJ 2010; 341: c6839
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar