alexa Presurgical diagnosis of adnexal tumours using mathematical models and scoring systems: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Medicine

Medicine

Journal of General Practice

Author(s): Kaijser J, Sayasneh A, Van Hoorde K, GhaemMaghami S, Bourne T, , Kaijser J, Sayasneh A, Van Hoorde K, GhaemMaghami S, Bourne T, , Kaijser J, Sayasneh A, Van Hoorde K, Kaijser J, GhaemMaghami S, Sayasneh A, Bourne T, Van Hoorde K, , GhaemMaghami S, Bourne T,

Abstract Share this page

Abstract BACKGROUND Characterizing ovarian pathology is fundamental to optimizing management in both pre- and post-menopausal women. Inappropriate referral to oncology services can lead to unnecessary surgery or overly radical interventions compromising fertility in young women, whilst the consequences of failing to recognize cancer significantly impact on prognosis. By reflecting on recent developments of new diagnostic tests for preoperative identification of malignant disease in women with adnexal masses, we aimed to update a previous systematic review and meta-analysis. METHODS An extended search was performed in MEDLINE (PubMed) and EMBASE (OvidSp) from March 2008 to October 2013. Eligible studies provided information on diagnostic test performance of models, designed to predict ovarian cancer in a preoperative setting, that contained at least two variables. Study selection and extraction of study characteristics, types of bias, and test performance was performed independently by two reviewers. Quality was assessed using a modified version of the QUADAS assessment tool. A bivariate hierarchical random effects model was used to produce summary estimates of sensitivity and specificity with 95\% confidence intervals or plot summary ROC curves for all models considered. RESULTS Our extended search identified a total of 1542 new primary articles. In total, 195 studies were eligible for qualitative data synthesis, and 96 validation studies reporting on 19 different prediction models met the predefined criteria for quantitative data synthesis. These models were tested on 26 438 adnexal masses, including 7199 (27\%) malignant and 19 239 (73\%) benign masses. The Risk of Malignancy Index (RMI) was the most frequently validated model. The logistic regression model LR2 with a risk cut-off of 10\% and Simple Rules (SR), both developed by the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis (IOTA) study, performed better than all other included models with a pooled sensitivity and specificity, respectively, of 0.92 [95\% CI 0.88-0.95] and 0.83 [95\% CI 0.77-0.88] for LR2 and 0.93 [95\% CI 0.89-0.95] and 0.81 [95\% CI 0.76-0.85] for SR. A meta-analysis of centre-specific results stratified for menopausal status of two multicentre cohorts comparing LR2, SR and RMI-1 (using a cut-off of 200) showed a pooled sensitivity and specificity in premenopausal women for LR2 of 0.85 [95\% CI 0.75-0.91] and 0.91 [95\% CI 0.83-0.96] compared with 0.93 [95\% CI 0.84-0.97] and 0.83 [95\% CI 0.73-0.90] for SR and 0.44 [95\% CI 0.28-0.62] and 0.95 [95\% CI 0.90-0.97] for RMI-1. In post-menopausal women, sensitivity and specificity of LR2, SR and RMI-1 were 0.94 [95\% CI 0.89-0.97] and 0.70 [95\% CI 0.62-0.77], 0.93 [95\% CI 0.88-0.96] and 0.76 [95\% CI 0.69-0.82], and 0.79 [95\% CI 0.72-0.85] and 0.90 [95\% CI 0.84-0.94], respectively. CONCLUSIONS An evidence-based approach to the preoperative characterization of any adnexal mass should incorporate the use of IOTA Simple Rules or the LR2 model, particularly for women of reproductive age. This article was published in Hum Reprod Update and referenced in Journal of General Practice

Relevant Expert PPTs

Relevant Speaker PPTs

Recommended Conferences

Relevant Topics

Peer Reviewed Journals
 
Make the best use of Scientific Research and information from our 700 + peer reviewed, Open Access Journals
International Conferences 2017-18
 
Meet Inspiring Speakers and Experts at our 3000+ Global Annual Meetings

Contact Us

Agri, Food, Aqua and Veterinary Science Journals

Dr. Krish

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001 Extn: 9040

Clinical and Biochemistry Journals

Datta A

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9037

Business & Management Journals

Ronald

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9042

Chemical Engineering and Chemistry Journals

Gabriel Shaw

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001 Extn: 9040

Earth & Environmental Sciences

Katie Wilson

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9042

Engineering Journals

James Franklin

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9042

General Science and Health care Journals

Andrea Jason

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9043

Genetics and Molecular Biology Journals

Anna Melissa

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001 Extn: 9006

Immunology & Microbiology Journals

David Gorantl

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9014

Informatics Journals

Stephanie Skinner

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9039

Material Sciences Journals

Rachle Green

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9039

Mathematics and Physics Journals

Jim Willison

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001 Extn: 9042

Medical Journals

Nimmi Anna

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001 Extn: 9038

Neuroscience & Psychology Journals

Nathan T

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9041

Pharmaceutical Sciences Journals

John Behannon

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9007

Social & Political Science Journals

Steve Harry

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001 Extn: 9042

 
© 2008-2017 OMICS International - Open Access Publisher. Best viewed in Mozilla Firefox | Google Chrome | Above IE 7.0 version
adwords