Skip to main content

Lund University Publications

LUND UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES

Comparison of the ADNEX and ROMA risk prediction models for the diagnosis of ovarian cancer : a multicentre external validation in patients who underwent surgery

Landolfo, Chiara ; Ceusters, Jolien ; Valentin, Lil LU orcid ; Froyman, Wouter ; Van Gorp, Toon ; Heremans, Ruben ; Baert, Thaïs ; Wouters, Roxanne ; Vankerckhoven, Ann and Van Rompuy, Anne Sophie , et al. (2024) In British Journal of Cancer
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... (More)

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.

(Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; and , et al. (More)
; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; and (Less)
organization
publishing date
type
Contribution to journal
publication status
epub
subject
in
British Journal of Cancer
publisher
Nature Publishing Group
external identifiers
  • pmid:38243011
  • scopus:85182629437
ISSN
0007-0920
DOI
10.1038/s41416-024-02578-x
language
English
LU publication?
yes
id
94b3a0ac-b57b-4f7c-90b0-78338e3d9b86
date added to LUP
2024-02-16 16:12:11
date last changed
2024-04-17 09:56:01
@article{94b3a0ac-b57b-4f7c-90b0-78338e3d9b86,
  abstract     = {{<p>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 &lt;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.</p>}},
  author       = {{Landolfo, Chiara and Ceusters, Jolien and Valentin, Lil and Froyman, Wouter and Van Gorp, Toon and Heremans, Ruben and Baert, Thaïs and Wouters, Roxanne and Vankerckhoven, Ann and Van Rompuy, Anne Sophie and Billen, Jaak and Moro, Francesca and Mascilini, Floriana and Neumann, Adam and Van Holsbeke, Caroline and Chiappa, Valentina and Bourne, Tom and Fischerova, Daniela and Testa, Antonia and Coosemans, An and Timmerman, Dirk and Van Calster, Ben}},
  issn         = {{0007-0920}},
  language     = {{eng}},
  publisher    = {{Nature Publishing Group}},
  series       = {{British Journal of Cancer}},
  title        = {{Comparison of the ADNEX and ROMA risk prediction models for the diagnosis of ovarian cancer : a multicentre external validation in patients who underwent surgery}},
  url          = {{http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41416-024-02578-x}},
  doi          = {{10.1038/s41416-024-02578-x}},
  year         = {{2024}},
}