Background: Several diagnostic prediction models to help clinicians discriminate between benign and malignant adnexal masses are available. This study is a head-to-head comparison of the performance of the Assessment of Different NEoplasias in the adneXa (ADNEX) model with that of the Risk of Ovarian Malignancy Algorithm (ROMA). Methods: This is a retrospective study based on prospectively included consecutive women with an adnexal tumour scheduled for surgery at five oncology centres and one non-oncology centre in four countries between 2015 and 2019. The reference standard was histology. Model performance for ADNEX and ROMA was evaluated regarding discrimination, calibration, and clinical utility. Results: The primary analysis included 894 patients, of whom 434 (49%) had a malignant tumour. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was 0.92 (95% CI 0.88–0.95) for ADNEX with CA125, 0.90 (0.84–0.94) for ADNEX without CA125, and 0.85 (0.80–0.89) for ROMA. ROMA, and to a lesser extent ADNEX, underestimated the risk of malignancy. Clinical utility was highest for ADNEX. ROMA had no clinical utility at decision thresholds <27%. Conclusions: ADNEX had better ability to discriminate between benign and malignant adnexal tumours and higher clinical utility than ROMA. Clinical trial registration: clinicaltrials.gov NCT01698632 and NCT02847832.
Comparison of the ADNEX and ROMA risk prediction models for the diagnosis of ovarian cancer: a multicentre external validation in patients who underwent surgery
Moro, Francesca;
2024-01-01
Abstract
Background: Several diagnostic prediction models to help clinicians discriminate between benign and malignant adnexal masses are available. This study is a head-to-head comparison of the performance of the Assessment of Different NEoplasias in the adneXa (ADNEX) model with that of the Risk of Ovarian Malignancy Algorithm (ROMA). Methods: This is a retrospective study based on prospectively included consecutive women with an adnexal tumour scheduled for surgery at five oncology centres and one non-oncology centre in four countries between 2015 and 2019. The reference standard was histology. Model performance for ADNEX and ROMA was evaluated regarding discrimination, calibration, and clinical utility. Results: The primary analysis included 894 patients, of whom 434 (49%) had a malignant tumour. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was 0.92 (95% CI 0.88–0.95) for ADNEX with CA125, 0.90 (0.84–0.94) for ADNEX without CA125, and 0.85 (0.80–0.89) for ROMA. ROMA, and to a lesser extent ADNEX, underestimated the risk of malignancy. Clinical utility was highest for ADNEX. ROMA had no clinical utility at decision thresholds <27%. Conclusions: ADNEX had better ability to discriminate between benign and malignant adnexal tumours and higher clinical utility than ROMA. Clinical trial registration: clinicaltrials.gov NCT01698632 and NCT02847832.I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.