Spagnol Giulia, Marchetti Matteo, De Tommasi Orazio, Vitagliano Amerigo, Cavallin Francesco, Tozzi Roberto, Saccardi Carlo, Noventa Marco
Department of Women and Children's Health, Unit of Gynecology and Obstetrics, University of Padua, Padua, Italy.
Department of Biomedical and Human Oncological Science (DIMO), 1st Unit of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Bari, Policlinico, Bari, Italy.
Gynecol Oncol. 2023 Oct;177:109-116. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2023.08.012. Epub 2023 Sep 1.
To compare performance of Assessment of Different NEoplasias in the adneXa (ADNEX model), Ovarian-Adnexal Reporting and Data System (O-RADS), Simple Rules Risk (SRR) assessment and the two-step strategy based on the application of Simple Rules (SR) followed by SRR and SR followed by ADNEX in the pre-operative discrimination between benign and malignant adnexal masses (AMs).
We conducted a retrospective study from January-2018 to December-2021 in which consecutive patients with at AMs were recruited. Accuracy metrics included sensitivity (SE) and specificity (SP) with their 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for ADNEX, O-RADS and SRR. When SR was inconclusive a "two-step strategy" was adopted applying SR + ADNEX model and SR + SRR assessment.
A total of 514 women were included, 400 (77.8%) had a benign ovarian tumor and 114 (22.2%) had a malignant tumor. At a threshold malignancy risk of >10%, the SE and SP of ADNEX model, O-RADS and SRR were: 0.92 (95% CI, 0.86-0.96) and 0.88 (95% CI, 0.85-0.91); 0.93 (95% CI, 0.87-0.97) and 0.89 (95% CI, 0.96-0.92); 0.88 (95% CI, 0.80-0.93) and 0.84 (95% CI, 0.80-0.87), respectively. When we applied SR, 109 (21.2%) cases resulted inconclusive. The SE and SP of two-step strategy SR + SRR assessment and SR + ADNEX model were 0.88 (95% CI, 0.80-0.93) and 0.92 (95% CI, 0.89-0.94), SR + ADNEX model 0.90 (95% CI, 0.83-0.95) and 0.93 (95% CI, 0.90-0.96), respectively.
O-RADS presented the highest SE, similar to ADNEX model and SR + ADNEX model. However, the SR + ADNEX model presented the higher performance accuracy with the higher SP and PPV. This two-step strategy, SR and ADNEX model applicated to inconclusive SR, is convenient for clinical evaluation.
比较附件区不同肿瘤评估(ADNEX模型)、卵巢附件报告和数据系统(O-RADS)、简单规则风险(SRR)评估以及基于应用简单规则(SR)后接SRR和SR后接ADNEX的两步法策略在术前鉴别良性和恶性附件包块(AM)中的表现。
我们于2018年1月至2021年12月进行了一项回顾性研究,纳入了连续的AM患者。计算了ADNEX、O-RADS和SRR的准确性指标,包括敏感性(SE)和特异性(SP)及其95%置信区间(CI)。当SR不确定时,采用“两步法策略”,即应用SR + ADNEX模型和SR + SRR评估。
共纳入514名女性,400名(77.8%)患有良性卵巢肿瘤,114名(22.2%)患有恶性肿瘤。在恶性风险阈值>10%时,ADNEX模型、O-RADS和SRR的SE和SP分别为:0.92(95%CI,0.86 - 0.96)和0.88(95%CI,0.85 - 0.91);0.93(95%CI, 0.87 - 0.97)和0.89(95%CI, 0.96 - 0.92);0.88(95%CI, 0.80 - 0.93)和0.84(95%CI, 0.80 - 0.87)。当应用SR时,109例(21.2%)病例结果不确定。两步法策略SR + SRR评估和SR + ADNEX模型的SE和SP分别为0.88(95%CI, 0.80 - 0.93)和0.92(95%CI, 0.89 - 0.94),SR + ADNEX模型为0.90(95%CI, 0.83 - 0.95)和0.93(95%CI, 0.90 - 0.96)。
O-RADS的SE最高,与ADNEX模型和SR + ADNEX模型相似。然而,SR + ADNEX模型具有更高的性能准确性,SP和PPV更高。这种将SR和ADNEX模型应用于SR不确定情况的两步法策略便于临床评估。