Clinical Utility of Risk Models to Refer Patients with Adnexal Masses to Specialized Oncology Care: Multicenter External Validation Using Decision Curve Analysis

Kód výsledku v 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>

Nalezeny alternativní kódy

RIV/00064165:_____/17:10364432

Výsledek na webu

<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>

Jazyk výsledku

angličtina

Název v původním jazyce

Clinical Utility of Risk Models to Refer Patients with Adnexal Masses to Specialized Oncology Care: Multicenter External Validation Using Decision Curve Analysis

Popis výsledku v původním jazyce

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.

Název v anglickém jazyce

Clinical Utility of Risk Models to Refer Patients with Adnexal Masses to Specialized Oncology Care: Multicenter External Validation Using Decision Curve Analysis

Popis výsledku anglicky

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.

Druh

J_imp - Článek v periodiku v databázi Web of Science

CEP obor

—

OECD FORD obor

30204 - Oncology

Projekt

—

Návaznosti

V - Vyzkumna aktivita podporovana z jinych verejnych zdroju

Rok uplatnění

2017

Kód důvěrnosti údajů

S - Úplné a pravdivé údaje o projektu nepodléhají ochraně podle zvláštních právních předpisů

Název periodika

Clinical Cancer Research

ISSN

1078-0432

e-ISSN

—

Svazek periodika

23

Číslo periodika v rámci svazku

17

Stát vydavatele periodika

US - Spojené státy americké

Počet stran výsledku

9

Strana od-do

5082-5090

Kód UT WoS článku

000409037300015

EID výsledku v databázi Scopus

2-s2.0-85029542806