Obstet Gynecol Sci.  2021 May;64(3):293-299. 10.5468/ogs.21012.

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

• Nam G
• Lee SR
• Jeong K
• Kim SH
• Moon HS
• Chae HD

• KMID: 2515981
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.5468/ogs.21012

Abstract

Objective
Ultrasonographic 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.
Methods
A 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.
Results
340 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).
Conclusion
The 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.

Keyword

Ovarian neoplasms; Fertility preservation; Prediction model; Ultrasonography

Figure

• 

  Fig. 1 The area under the receiver operating curve (AUC) comparison between the Assessment of Different NEoplasias in the adneXa (ADNEX) model (red line) and a subjective assessment (SA) (black line) in differentiation between benign and malignant adnexal masses in Korean women.

• 

  Fig. 2 The area under the receiver operating curve (AUC) comparison between the Assessment of Different NEoplasias in the adneXa (ADNEX) model (red line) and a subjective assessment (SA) (black line) in differentiation between benign and malignant adnexal masses in Korean (A) premenopausal women and (B) postmenopausal women.

Reference

References

1. Lim MC, Won YJ, Ko MJ, Kim M, Shim SH, Suh DH, et al. Incidence of cervical, endometrial, and ovarian cancer in Korea during 1999–2015. J Gynecol Oncol. 2019; 30:e38.

2. Van Calster B, Van Hoorde K, Valentin L, Testa AC, Fischerova D, Van Holsbeke C, 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 multicenter diagnostic study. BMJ. 2014; 349:g5920.

3. Kaijser J. Towards an evidence-based approach for diagnosis and management of adnexal masses: findings of the International Ovarian Tumour Analysis (IOTA) studies. Facts Views Vis Obgyn. 2015; 7:42–59.

4. Jacobs I, Oram D, Fairbanks J, Turner J, Frost C, Grudzinskas JG. A risk of malignancy index incorporating CA 125, ultrasound and menopausal status for the accurate preoperative diagnosis of ovarian cancer. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1990; 97:922–9.

5. Moore RG, McMeekin DS, Brown AK, DiSilvestro P, Miller MC, Allard WJ, et al. A novel multiple marker bioassay utilizing HE4 and CA125 for the prediction of ovarian cancer in patients with a pelvic mass. Gynecol Oncol. 2009; 112:40–6.

6. Van Calster B, Van Hoorde K, Froyman W, Kaijser J, Wynants L, Landolfo C, 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.

7. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists’ Committee on Practice Bulletins-Gynecology. Practice Bulletin No. 174: evaluation and management of adnexal masses. Obstet Gynecol. 2016; 128:e210–26.

8. Carley ME, Klingele CJ, Gebhart JB, Webb MJ, Wilson TO. Laparoscopy versus laparotomy in the management of benign unilateral adnexal masses. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc. 2002; 9:321–6.

9. Tropé CG, Kaern J, Davidson B. Borderline ovarian tumours. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2012; 26:325–36.

10. Tinelli R, Tinelli A, Tinelli FG, Cicinelli E, Malvasi A. Conservative surgery for borderline ovarian tumors: a review. Gynecol Oncol. 2006; 100:185–91.

11. Daraï E, Fauvet R, Uzan C, Gouy S, Duvillard P, Morice P. Fertility and borderline ovarian tumor: a systematic review of conservative management, risk of recurrence and alternative options. Hum Reprod Update. 2013; 19:151–66.

12. Trimbos JB, Vergote I, Bolis G, Vermorken JB, Mangioni C, Madronal C, et al. Impact of adjuvant chemotherapy and surgical staging in early-stage ovarian carcinoma: European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer-Adjuvant ChemoTherapy in Ovarian Neoplasm trial. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2003; 95:113–25.

13. Zhang Y, Fan S, Xiang Y, Duan H, Sun L. Comparison of the prognosis and recurrence of apparent early-stage ovarian tumors treated with laparoscopy and laparotomy: a meta-analysis of clinical studies. BMC Cancer. 2015; 15:597.

14. Lee SJ, Bae JH, Lee AW, Tong SY, Park YG, Park JS. Clinical characteristics of metastatic tumors to the ovaries. J Korean Med Sci. 2009; 24:114–9.

15. Hennessy BT, Coleman RL, Markman M. Ovarian cancer. Lancet. 2009; 374:1371–82.

16. R Core Team. 2020. R: A language and environment for statistical computing [Internet]. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing;c2020 [cited 2020 Sep 11]. Available from: https://www.R-project.org/ .

17. Araujo KG, Jales RM, Pereira PN, Yoshida A, de Angelo Andrade L, Sarian LO, et al. Performance of the IOTA ADNEX model in preoperative discrimination of adnexal masses in a gynecological oncology center. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2017; 49:778–83.

18. Meys EMJ, Jeelof LS, Achten NMJ, Slangen BFM, Lambrechts S, Kruitwagen RFPM, et al. Estimating risk of malignancy in adnexal masses: external validation of the ADNEX model and comparison with other frequently used ultrasound methods. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2017; 49:784–92.

19. Nohuz E, De Simone L, Chêne G. Reliability of IOTA score and ADNEX model in the screening of ovarian malignancy in postmenopausal women. J Gynecol Obstet Hum Reprod. 2019; 48:103–7.

20. Sayasneh A, Ferrara L, De Cock B, Saso S, Al-Memar M, Johnson S, et al. Evaluating the risk of ovarian cancer before surgery using the ADNEX model: a multicenter external validation study. Br J Cancer. 2016; 115:542–8.

21. Szubert S, Wojtowicz A, Moszynski R, Zywica P, Dyczkowski K, Stachowiak A, et al. External validation of IOTA ADNEX model performed by two independent gynecologic centers. Gynecol Oncol. 2016; 142:490–5.