OBJECTIVES: To externally and prospectively validate the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis (IOTA) Simple Rules (SRs), Logistic Regression model 2 (LR2) and Assessment of Different NEoplasias in the adneXa (ADNEX) model in a Portuguese population, comparing these approaches with subjective assessment and the risk-of-malignancy index (RMI), as well as with each other. This study also aimed to retrospectively validate the IOTA two-step strategy, using modified benign simple descriptors (MBDs) followed by the ADNEX model in cases in which MBDs were not applicable. METHODS: This was a prospective multicenter diagnostic accuracy study conducted between January 2016 and December 2021 of consecutive patients with an ultrasound diagnosis of at least one adnexal tumor, who underwent surgery at one of three tertiary referral centers in Lisbon, Portugal. All ultrasound assessments were performed by Level-II or -III sonologists with IOTA certification. Patient clinical data and serum CA 125 levels were collected from hospital databases. Each adnexal mass was classified as benign or malignant using subjective assessment, RMI, IOTA SRs, LR2 and the ADNEX model (with and without CA 125). The reference standard was histopathological diagnosis. In the second phase, all adnexal tumors were classified retrospectively using the two-step strategy (MBDs + ADNEX). Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, positive and negative likelihood ratios and overall accuracy were determined for all methods. Receiver-operating-characteristics curves were constructed and corresponding areas under the curve (AUC) were determined for RMI, LR2, the ADNEX model and the two-step strategy. The ADNEX model calibration plots were constructed using locally estimated scatterplot smoothing (LOESS). RESULTS: Of the 571 patients included in the study, 428 had benign disease and 143 had malignant disease (prevalence of malignancy, 25.0%), of which 42 had borderline ovarian tumor, 93 had primary invasive adnexal cancer and eight had metastatic tumors in the adnexa. Subjective assessment had an overall sensitivity of 97.9% and a specificity of 83.6% for distinguishing between benign and malignant lesions. RMI showed high specificity (95.6%) but very low sensitivity (58.7%), with an AUC of 0.913. The IOTA SRs were applicable in 80.0% of patients, with a sensitivity of 94.8% and specificity of 98.6%. The IOTA LR2 had a sensitivity of 84.6%, specificity of 86.9% and an AUC of 0.939, at a malignancy risk cut-off of 10%. At the same cut-off, the sensitivity, specificity and AUC for the ADNEX model with vs without CA 125 were 95.8% vs 98.6%, 82.5% vs 79.7% and 0.962 vs 0.960, respectively. The ADNEX model gave heterogeneous results for distinguishing between benign masses and different subtypes of malignancy, with the highest AUC (0.991) for discriminating benign masses from primary invasive adnexal cancer Stages II-IV, and the lowest AUC (0.696) for discriminating primary invasive adnexal cancer Stage I from metastatic lesion in the adnexa. The calibration plot suggested underestimation of the risk by the ADNEX model compared with the observed proportion of malignancy. The MBDs were applicable in 26.3% (150/571) of cases, of which none was malignant. The two-step strategy using the ADNEX model in the second step only, with and without CA 125, had AUCs of 0.964 and 0.961, respectively, which was similar to applying the ADNEX model in all patients. CONCLUSIONS: The IOTA methods showed good-to-excellent performance in the Portuguese population, outperforming RMI. The ADNEX model was superior to other methods in terms of accuracy, but interpretation of its ability to distinguish between malignant subtypes was limited by sample size and large differences in the prevalence of tumor subtypes. The IOTA MBDs are reliable in identifying benign disease. The two-step strategy comprising application of MBDs followed by the ADNEX model if MBDs are not applicable, is suitable for daily clinical practice, circumventing the need to calculate the risk of malignancy in all patients. © 2024 International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

• MeSH
• CA-125 Antigen blood   MeSH
• Diagnosis, Differential MeSH
• Adult MeSH
• Middle Aged MeSH
• Humans MeSH
• Logistic Models MeSH
• Ovarian Neoplasms * diagnostic imaging   pathology   classification   blood   MeSH
• Adnexal Diseases * diagnostic imaging   MeSH
• Predictive Value of Tests MeSH
• Prospective Studies MeSH
• Reproducibility of Results MeSH
• Retrospective Studies MeSH
• ROC Curve MeSH
• Aged MeSH
• Sensitivity and Specificity MeSH
• Ultrasonography * methods   MeSH
• Check Tag
• Adult MeSH
• Middle Aged MeSH
• Humans MeSH
• Aged MeSH
• Female MeSH
• Publication type
• Journal Article MeSH
• Multicenter Study MeSH
• Validation Study MeSH
• Geographicals
• Portugal MeSH

OBJECTIVE: Previous work has suggested that the ultrasound-based benign simple descriptors (BDs) can reliably exclude malignancy in a large proportion of women presenting with an adnexal mass. This study aimed to validate a modified version of the BDs and to validate a two-step strategy to estimate the risk of malignancy, in which the modified BDs are followed by the Assessment of Different NEoplasias in the adneXa (ADNEX) model if modified BDs do not apply. METHODS: This was a retrospective analysis using data from the 2-year interim analysis of the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis (IOTA) Phase-5 study, in which consecutive patients with at least one adnexal mass were recruited irrespective of subsequent management (conservative or surgery). The main outcome was classification of tumors as benign or malignant, based on histology or on clinical and ultrasound information during 1 year of follow-up. Multiple imputation was used when outcome based on follow-up was uncertain according to predefined criteria. RESULTS: A total of 8519 patients were recruited at 36 centers between 2012 and 2015. We excluded patients who were already in follow-up at recruitment and all patients from 19 centers that did not fulfil our criteria for good-quality surgical and follow-up data, leaving 4905 patients across 17 centers for statistical analysis. Overall, 3441 (70%) tumors were benign, 978 (20%) malignant and 486 (10%) uncertain. The modified BDs were applicable in 1798/4905 (37%) tumors, of which 1786 (99.3%) were benign. The two-step strategy based on ADNEX without CA125 had an area under the receiver-operating-characteristics curve (AUC) of 0.94 (95% CI, 0.92-0.96). The risk of malignancy was slightly underestimated, but calibration varied between centers. A sensitivity analysis in which we expanded the definition of uncertain outcome resulted in 1419 (29%) tumors with uncertain outcome and an AUC of the two-step strategy without CA125 of 0.93 (95% CI, 0.91-0.95). CONCLUSION: A large proportion of adnexal masses can be classified as benign by the modified BDs. For the remaining masses, the ADNEX model can be used to estimate the risk of malignancy. This two-step strategy is convenient for clinical use. © 2022 The Authors. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

• MeSH
• CA-125 Antigen MeSH
• Diagnosis, Differential MeSH
• Humans MeSH
• Ovarian Neoplasms * pathology   MeSH
• Adnexal Diseases * pathology   MeSH
• Retrospective Studies MeSH
• Sensitivity and Specificity MeSH
• Ultrasonography methods   MeSH
• Check Tag
• Humans MeSH
• Female MeSH
• Publication type
• Journal Article MeSH
• Multicenter Study MeSH

BACKGROUND: To compare different ultrasound-based international ovarian tumour analysis (IOTA) strategies and risk of malignancy index (RMI) for ovarian cancer diagnosis using a meta-analysis approach of centre-specific data from IOTA3. METHODS: This prospective multicentre diagnostic accuracy study included 2403 patients with 1423 benign and 980 malignant adnexal masses from 2009 until 2012. All patients underwent standardised transvaginal ultrasonography. Test performance of RMI, subjective assessment (SA) of ultrasound findings, two IOTA risk models (LR1 and LR2), and strategies involving combinations of IOTA simple rules (SRs), simple descriptors (SDs) and LR2 with and without SA was estimated using a meta-analysis approach. Reference standard was histology after surgery. RESULTS: The areas under the receiver operator characteristic curves of LR1, LR2, SA and RMI were 0.930 (0.917-0.942), 0.918 (0.905-0.930), 0.914 (0.886-0.936) and 0.875 (0.853-0.894). Diagnostic one-step and two-step strategies using LR1, LR2, SR and SD achieved summary estimates for sensitivity 90-96%, specificity 74-79% and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) 32.8-50.5. Adding SA when IOTA methods yielded equivocal results improved performance (DOR 57.6-75.7). Risk of Malignancy Index had sensitivity 67%, specificity 91% and DOR 17.5. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows all IOTA strategies had excellent diagnostic performance in comparison with RMI. The IOTA strategy chosen may be determined by clinical preference.

• MeSH
• Endometriosis ultrasonography   MeSH
• Humans MeSH
• Multicenter Studies as Topic MeSH
• Ovarian Neoplasms ultrasonography   MeSH
• Proportional Hazards Models MeSH
• Prospective Studies MeSH
• ROC Curve MeSH
• Cystadenoma, Serous ultrasonography   MeSH
• Check Tag
• Humans MeSH
• Female MeSH
• Publication type
• Journal Article MeSH
• Meta-Analysis MeSH
• Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't MeSH
• Comparative Study MeSH