Comparison of the ADNEX and ROMA risk prediction models for the diagnosis of ovarian cancer: a multicentre external validation in patients who underwent surgery
The result's identifiers
Result code in IS VaVaI
<a href="https://www.isvavai.cz/riv?ss=detail&h=RIV%2F00064165%3A_____%2F24%3A10478395" target="_blank" >RIV/00064165:_____/24:10478395 - isvavai.cz</a>
Alternative codes found
RIV/00216208:11110/24:10478395
Result on the web
<a href="https://verso.is.cuni.cz/pub/verso.fpl?fname=obd_publikace_handle&handle=nX8_B~Uoxj" target="_blank" >https://verso.is.cuni.cz/pub/verso.fpl?fname=obd_publikace_handle&handle=nX8_B~Uoxj</a>
DOI - Digital Object Identifier
<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41416-024-02578-x" target="_blank" >10.1038/s41416-024-02578-x</a>
Alternative languages
Result language
angličtina
Original language name
Comparison of the ADNEX and ROMA risk prediction models for the diagnosis of ovarian cancer: a multicentre external validation in patients who underwent surgery
Original language description
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.
Czech name
—
Czech description
—
Classification
Type
J<sub>imp</sub> - Article in a specialist periodical, which is included in the Web of Science database
CEP classification
—
OECD FORD branch
30214 - Obstetrics and gynaecology
Result continuities
Project
—
Continuities
V - Vyzkumna aktivita podporovana z jinych verejnych zdroju
Others
Publication year
2024
Confidentiality
S - Úplné a pravdivé údaje o projektu nepodléhají ochraně podle zvláštních právních předpisů
Data specific for result type
Name of the periodical
British Journal of Cancer
ISSN
0007-0920
e-ISSN
1532-1827
Volume of the periodical
130
Issue of the periodical within the volume
6
Country of publishing house
GB - UNITED KINGDOM
Number of pages
7
Pages from-to
934-940
UT code for WoS article
001145939000001
EID of the result in the Scopus database
2-s2.0-85182629437