Clinical Utility of Risk Models to Refer Patients with Adnexal Masses to Specialized Oncology Care: Multicenter External Validation Using Decision Curve Analysis
The result's identifiers
Result code in IS VaVaI
<a href="https://www.isvavai.cz/riv?ss=detail&h=RIV%2F00216208%3A11110%2F17%3A10364432" target="_blank" >RIV/00216208:11110/17:10364432 - isvavai.cz</a>
Alternative codes found
RIV/00064165:_____/17:10364432
Result on the web
<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-16-3248" target="_blank" >http://dx.doi.org/10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-16-3248</a>
DOI - Digital Object Identifier
<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-16-3248" target="_blank" >10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-16-3248</a>
Alternative languages
Result language
angličtina
Original language name
Clinical Utility of Risk Models to Refer Patients with Adnexal Masses to Specialized Oncology Care: Multicenter External Validation Using Decision Curve Analysis
Original language description
Purpose: To evaluate the utility of preoperative diagnostic models for ovarian cancer based on ultrasound and/or biomarkers for referring patients to specialized oncology care. The investigated models were RMI, ROMA, and 3 models from the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis (IOTA) group [LR2, ADNEX, and the Simple Rules risk score (SRRisk)]. Experimental Design: A secondary analysis of prospectively collected data from 2 cross-sectional cohort studies was performed to externally validate diagnostic models. A total of 2,763 patients (2,403 in dataset 1 and 360 in dataset 2) from 18 centers (11 oncology centers and 7 nononcology hospitals) in 6 countries participated. Excised tissue was histologically classified as benign or malignant. The clinical utility of the preoperative diagnostic models was assessed with net benefit (NB) at a range of risk thresholds (5%-50% risk of malignancy) to refer patients to specialized oncology care. We visualized results with decision curves and generated bootstrap confidence intervals. Results: The prevalence of malignancy was 41% in dataset 1 and 40% in dataset 2. For thresholds up to 10% to 15%, RMI and ROMA had a lower NB than referring all patients. SRRisks and ADNEX demonstrated the highest NB. At a threshold of 20%, the NBs of ADNEX, SRrisks, and RMI were 0.348, 0.350, and 0.270, respectively. Results by menopausal status and type of center (oncology vs. nononcology) were similar. Conclusions: All tested IOTA methods, especially ADNEX and SRRisks, are clinically more useful than RMI and ROMA to select patients with adnexal masses for specialized oncology care.
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
30204 - Oncology
Result continuities
Project
—
Continuities
V - Vyzkumna aktivita podporovana z jinych verejnych zdroju
Others
Publication year
2017
Confidentiality
S - Úplné a pravdivé údaje o projektu nepodléhají ochraně podle zvláštních právních předpisů
Data specific for result type
Name of the periodical
Clinical Cancer Research
ISSN
1078-0432
e-ISSN
—
Volume of the periodical
23
Issue of the periodical within the volume
17
Country of publishing house
US - UNITED STATES
Number of pages
9
Pages from-to
5082-5090
UT code for WoS article
000409037300015
EID of the result in the Scopus database
2-s2.0-85029542806