|
||||
|
|
Chinese Journal of Medical Ultrasound (Electronic Edition) >
2020 , Vol. 17 >Issue 12: 1213 - 1219
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3877/cma.j.issn.1672-6448.2020.12.013
Diagnostic value of ADNEX model combined with Copenhagen index in differentiating benign from malignant ovarian tumors
Received date: 2020-04-23
Online published: 2020-12-01
To analyze and compare the efficacy of ADNEX model, Copenhagen index (CPH-I), and the combination of them in the diagnosis of benign and malignant ovarian tumors, and to identify the independent factors for the prediction of ovarian malignancy.
A total of 186 patients with 190 ovarian tumors who underwent surgical treatment at the Department of Gynaecology of Changzhou No.2 People's Hospital from January 2018 to December 2019 were enrolled in this retrospective analysis. ADNEX model analysis and CPH-I calculation were performed to estimate the possibility of malignancy. Using the pathologic results as the gold standard, ROC curve analysis was performed to calculate the sensitivity, specificity, and Youden index of ADNEX model, CPH-I, and the combination of both. The correlation between the variables and ovarian malignancies was also calculated. The independent sample t test was used to compare the difference in age and the maximum diameter of tumor between the benign and malignant groups, the rank sum test was used to compare the difference in carbohydrate antigen 125 (CA125), human epididymis protein 4 (HE4), and the largest diameter of the solid part of the tumor between groups, and the Fisher exact test and correction χ2 test were used to compare the number of compartments, number of papillae, acoustic shadow, and ascites between groups. Single factor analysis and multivariate binary Logistic regression analysis were carried out to identify the predictive factors for ovarian malignancy.
The sensitivities of ADNEX model, CPH-I, and the combination of both in the differential diagnosis of benign and malignant ovarian tumors were 65%, 65%, and 74%, the specificities were 99%, 94%, and 94%, and the areas under the ROC curves were 0.82, 0.80, and 0.84, respectively. Single factor analysis showed that the differences of age [(41.99±14.75) years vs (54.74±13.39) years, t=-4.64, P<0.001], CA125 [(18.39 (12.11~36.98) U/ml vs 124.05 (41.27~1121.35) U/ml), Z=-5.90, P<0.001], HE4 [40.20 (32.93~50.55) pmol/Lvs 78.65 (48.38~639.80) pmol/L, Z=-6.32, P<0.001], maximum diameter of tumor [(6.89±3.34) cm vs (8.91±3.91) cm, t=-3.11, P=0.002], the largest diameter of the solid part of tumor [0.00 (0.00~0.00) cm vs 4.75 (2.50~7.70) cm, Z=-9.80, P<0.001], more than three papillae (1.92% vs 26.47%, P<0.001), and ascites (0 vs 32.35%, χ2=47.80, P<0.001) were statistically significant between the benign and malignant groups. Multivariate analysis showed that age, HE4, the largest diameter of the solid part of tumor, and more than three papillae were independent risk factors for malignant ovarian tumors (OR [odds ratio]=1.059, P=0.002; OR=1.003, P=0.004; OR=1.533, P<0.001; OR=60.930, P<0.001).
Both ADNEX model and CPH-I have important clinical value in the differentiation of benign and malignant ovarian tumors, and the combination of them has a higher sensitivity. Age, HE4, maximum diameter of the solid part of tumor, and number of papillae more than 3 are independent risk factors for malignant ovarian tumors.
Key words: Ovarian tumors; ADNEX model; Copenhagen index
Huan Li , Xiaoqin Li , Xiuhua Wu , Yanyun Shi . Diagnostic value of ADNEX model combined with Copenhagen index in differentiating benign from malignant ovarian tumors[J]. Chinese Journal of Medical Ultrasound (Electronic Edition), 2020 , 17(12) : 1213 -1219 . DOI: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.1672-6448.2020.12.013
| 1 | 白博, 韩慧娟, 周毓青. IOTA简易原则预测卵巢肿瘤良恶性的临床价值研究 [J/CD]. 中华医学超声杂志(电子版), 2018, 15(8): 620-622. |
| 2 | Chen H, Qian L, Jiang M, et al. Performance of IOTA ADNEX model in evaluating adnexal masses in a gynecological oncology center in China [J]. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol, 2019, 54(6): 815-822. |
| 3 | Van Calster B, Van Hoorde K, Valentin L, et al. Evaluating the risk of ovarian cancer before surgery using the ADNEX model to differentiate between benign, borderline, early and advanced stage invasive, and secondary metastatic tumours: prospective multicentre diagnostic study [J]. BMJ, 2014, 349: g5920. |
| 4 | H?gdall E. Approaches to the detection of ovarian cancer [J]. Scand J Clin Lab Invest Suppl, 2016, 245: S49-S53. |
| 5 | Meys E, Jeelof LS, Achten N, et al. Estimating risk of malignancy in adnexal masses: external validation of the ADNEX model and comparison with other frequently used ultrasound methods [J]. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol, 2017, 49(6): 784-792. |
| 6 | 李玲, 周一波, 吴美艳, 等. 超声ADNEX模型对卵巢肿瘤的诊断价值 [J]. 中华内分泌外科杂志, 2019, 13(1): 67-71. |
| 7 | Guerriero S, Saba L, Ajossa S, et al. Assessing the reproducibility of the IOTA simple ultrasound rules for classifying adnexal masses as benign or malignant using stored 3D volumes [J]. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol, 2013, 171(1): 157-160. |
| 8 | Nunes N, Yazbek J, Ambler G, et al. Prospective evaluation of the IOTA logistic regression model LR2 for the diagnosis of ovarian cancer [J]. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol, 2012, 40(3): 355-359. |
| 9 | Sayasneh A, Ferrara L, De Cock B, et al. Evaluating the risk of ovarian cancer before surgery using the ADNEX model: a multicentre external validation study [J]. Br J Cancer, 2016, 115(5): 542-548. |
| 10 | Szubert S, Wojtowicz A, Moszynski R, et al. External validation of the IOTA ADNEX model performed by two independent gynecologic centers [J]. Gynecol Oncol, 2016, 142(3): 490-495. |
| 11 | Wynants L, Timmerman D, Verbakel JY, et al. Clinical utility of risk models to refer patients with adnexal masses to specialized oncology care: multicenter external validation using decision curve analysis [J]. Clin Cancer Res, 2017, 23(17): 5082-5090. |
| 12 | Karlsen MA, Hogdall EV, Christensen IJ, et al. A novel diagnostic index combining HE4, CA125 and age may improve triage of women with suspected ovarian cancer - An international multicenter study in women with an ovarian mass [J]. Gynecol Oncol, 2015, 138(3): 640-646. |
| 13 | Dochez V, Caillon H, Vaucel E, et al. Biomarkers and algorithms for diagnosis of ovarian cancer: CA125, HE4, RMI and ROMA, a review [J]. J Ovarian Res, 2019, 12(1): 28. |
| 14 | Ahmed AA, Abdou AM. Diagnostic accuracy of CA125 and HE4 in ovarian carcinoma patients and the effect of confounders on their serum levels [J]. Curr Probl Cancer, 2019, 43(5): 450-460. |
| 15 | Shin KH, Kim HH, Kwon BS, et al. Clinical usefulness of cancer antigen (CA) 125, human epididymis 4, and CA72-4 levels and risk of ovarian malignancy algorithm values for diagnosing ovarian tumors in Korean patients with and without endometriosis [J]. Ann Lab Med, 2020, 40(1): 40-47. |
| 16 | Wang D, Xiang Y, Wu M, et al. Clinicopathological characteristics and prognosis of adult ovarian granulosa cell tumor: a single-institution experience in China [J]. Onco Targets Ther, 2018, 11: 1315-1322. |
| 17 | Levin G, Zigron R, Haj-Yahya R, et al. Granulosa cell tumor of ovary: a systematic review of recent evidence [J]. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol, 2018, 225: 57-61. |
| 18 | 龚时鹏, 陈咏宁, 张雅迪, 等. 血清CA125、HE4和哥本哈根指数在卵巢上皮性肿瘤良恶性鉴别诊断中的价值 [J]. 南方医科大学学报, 2017, 37(5): 628-632. |
| 19 | Meys E, Jeelof LS, Achten N, et al. Estimating risk of malignancy in adnexal masses: external validation of the ADNEX model and comparison with other frequently used ultrasound methods [J]. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol, 2017, 49(6): 784-792. |
/
| 〈 |
|
〉 |
|
Copyright © Chinese Journal of Medical Ultrasound (Electronic Edition), All Rights Reserved. Tel: 010-51322630、2632、2628 Fax: 010-51322630 E-mail: csbjb@cma.org.cn Powered by Beijing Magtech Co. Ltd |