Submit manuscript...
eISSN: 2377-4304

Obstetrics & Gynecology International Journal

Correspondence:

Received: January 01, 1970 | Published: ,

Citation: DOI:

Download PDF

Abstract

Adnexal masses are tumors which may be located either in the ovary or the fallopian tubes or the surrounding connective tissue, i.e. mesosalpinx, the mesovarian section and the broad ligament. It is a common gynecological issue. Thus a previous determination of the benignancy or malignancy risk is essential for a subsequently careful management. There is a variety of radiological approaches, biomarkers or clinically pre-surgical procedures and predictive models studied and validated all over the world in order to differentiate the etiology of adnexal masses. Dr. J. Kaijser and his clinical research team conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis over the use of mathematically predictive models of diagnosis beforehand of adnexal masses. Nowadays the analysis of different studies and systematic reviews prove that both IOTA LR2 and Simple Rules are the best diagnostic approaches available in the preoperatively differentiation of both benign and malignant adnexal masses. Such disquisition is vitally important for women of reproductive age, as it deals with fertility preservation. Furthermore, having obtained predictive outcomes over benign diseases, women are more likely to be treated by obstetrician-gynecologists (OB-GYN) or in general hospitals and patients given a diagnostically suspected malignancy would be referred to and treated by gynecologic oncologists.

Keywords: Adnexal mass, predictive model, ovarian cancer

Introduction

Adnexal masses are tumors which may be located either in the ovary or the fallopian tubes or the surrounding connective tissue, i.e. mesosalpinx, mesovarian section and broad ligament, being a relatively common gynecological issue. When a woman is diagnosed with an adnexal mass adnexal, it is very important for doctors to define whether they are dealing with a benign illness, i.e. endometriosis, cystadenomas -among others- or an ovary cancer since the illness treatment and prognosis drastically change in both cases. According to the last 2010-2012 Metropolitan Lima Cancer Record, the ovary cancer is placed ninth among the most common tumors affecting female population in Peru, with a 7.73 Standardized Age Rate out of 100,000 women and a 3.57 Mortality Rate out of 100,000 women.1 Women diagnosed with ovary cancer have subtle and unspecified symptoms such as abdominal pain, polaquiuria, intestinal discomfort, which makes ovary cancer diagnosis difficult.2,3

In the last few years in many countries clinical guides to cancer treatment recommend that patients with adnexal masses and posing a high malignancy risk are to be referred to a gynecologic oncologist.4 A wide variety of radiological procedures, biomarkers or clinically pre-surgical procedures have been studied and validated worldwide in order to differentiate benign adnexal masses from those in suspicious cancer.5 Different studies have proven that survival rates for patients with initially ovarian cancer are better when the surgery is carried out by a gynecologic oncologist.6–10

Different predictive models of diagnosis help doctors to make a suitable triage in order to decide on the best treatment. However, neither of them has been universally accepted by clinically everyday practice. In fact, clinical guides of the National Institute of Clinical Excellence and Royal College of Obstetrics and Gynecology suggest utilizing the Risk of Malignancy Index (RMI) as a primarily diagnostic tool in the United Kingdom. Whereas in other countries, the use of biomarkers in combination with algorithms is strongly recommended such as the ROMA -Risk of Ovarian Malignancy Algorithm- one in clinical practice. Other guides suggest utilizing ultrasound screening and clinical models, i.e. IOTA - LR2.11,12

The aim of the article herein is to update different diagnostic approaches for the pre-surgical assessment of adnexal masses.

Ultrasound screening- MRI and CA 125

Results suggest that the 3D-ultrasound screening has better sensitivity and specificity in relation to that of the 2D one.13 The adnexal mass assessment by performing a color Doppler study does not have a bigger sensitivity or specificity than that of simple ultrasonography. Furthermore, an exact diagnosis only based on Doppler studies may derive on distortion of the results due to superimposition of vascular parameters between malign and benign masses.14

Of all imaging methods, MRI has the best results, however with no significant difference in relation to CAT scan technology. On the other hand, the CA 125 screening measurement is the least reliable among the different assessment methods due to variations shown in pre- and post-menopausal women even if they are suffering from malign or benign illnesses.15,16

Predictive models

Dr. J. Kaijser and his clinical research team conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis over the use of mathematically predictive models of presurgical diagnosis of adnexal masses (Table 1).17 All predictive models were classified on the basis of type of model, i.e. morphologically scoring systems, Risk of Malignancy Index -RMI, logistical regression as well as ultrasound ruling and biomarking-ROMA. Table 2 below shows sensitivity and specificity of the various models with their different cut sections and a 95%- confidence interval. Unlike other models, ROMA takes account of different cut sections for pre- and post-menopausal patients. In addition, such values change by being subject to the type of kit utilized in the measurement of serum CA125 and HE4 levels (Chart 3).

Modela

Model type

 Variables

Cut level

Number of validation studiesb

Number of adnexal masses

Tailor

Logistical Regression

(i) Papillas, (ii) age (iii) time average of maximum speed in tumor vessels

50%

6

2527

LRa

Logistical Regression

(ii) Color scoring, (ii) CA125 (iii) papillas (iv) menopause scoring

25%

3

1888

LRb

Logistical Regression

(i) Papillas, (ii) inner wall (iii) unilocular cyst (iv) ascites (v) bilateralism (vi) menopause (vii) CA125 scoring

60%

5

2155

Jokubkiene

Logistical Regression

(i) Lesion size (3-diameter average) (ii) biggest solid part size (3-diameter average) (iii) any irregularity

12%

2

2043

Prompeler

Logistical Regression

(i) Ascites, (ii) shadowless solid lesion (iii) a 30%-solid-part cyst (iv) lesion diameter (v) multilocularity (vi) cyst surface

10%

2

1236

IOTA LR2

Logistical Regression

(i) Age (ii) ascites (iii) blood flow inside a papillar projection (iv) maximal diameter of biggest solid part (contained in 50 mm) (v) irregular inner cystic wallacoustic (vi) acoustic shadows

10%

3

1356

Ferrazzi

Morphologic Score

(i) Wall structure (ii) septum (iii) vegetation (iv) echogenicity

9

9

1814

Depriest

Morphologic score

(i) Cyst volume (ii)wall structure (iii) septal structure

5

10

1957

Lerner

Morphologic Score

(i) Wall structure (ii) acoustic shadows (iii) septum (iv) echogenicity

3

10

3035

Sassone

Morphologic Score

(i) Inner wall structure (ii) wall thickness (iii) septum (iv) echogenicity

9

21

2981

RMI I

Multimodal Scoring System

(i) menopausal state (ii) CA125 (iii) multilocular cyst (iv) solid areas (v) metastasis (vi) ascites (vii) bilaterality

200

35

9597

RMI II

Multimodal Scoring System

(i) Similar to RMI 1

200

18

4772

RMI III

Multimodal Scoring System

(i) Similar to RMI 1

200

14

5169

RMI IV

Multimodal Scoring System

(i) Menopausal state (ii) CA125 (iii) multilocular cyst (iv) solid areas (v) metastasis (vi) ascites (vii) bilateralism (viii biggest lesion diameter

450

5

2191

ANN1

Artificial Neural Network

(i) Papillas, (ii) color score (iii) menopausal (iv) CA125

45%

3

1976

ANN2

Artificial Neural Network

(i) Papillas, (ii) smooth surface (iii) unilocularity(iv) ascites (v) bilateralism (vi) menopausal state (vii) CA125

60%

4

2055

Simple Rulesc

Ultrasound Rules

Criterion M: (irregular solid mass, 4-score colo, irregularly multilocular solid mass ≥100 mm, ascites, at least 4 papillar structures); criterion B: (unilocular cyst, 1-color score, multilocular smooth cyst with a bigger diameter than 100 mm, acoustic shadow presence, solid part presence where the biggest solid parthas a diameter bigger than 7mm)

n/a

5

2315

ROMAd

Bioscoring Algorithm

(i) CA125 (ii) HE4 (iii) menopausal state

n/a

18

5116

OVA-1e

Bioscoring Algorithm

(i) CA125 (ii) transferrin (iii) transthyretin (pre-albumin) (iv) A1 protei apolyp (v) beta- 2 microgobulin

n/a

2

1018

Table 1 Prediction Models
LRa, logistical regression model a; LRb, logistical regression model b; IOTA LR2, logistical regression model 2 of the International ovarian tumor analysis Stud; RMI, risk of malignancy index; ANN, artificial neural networkl; ROMA, risk of ovarian malignancy algorithm
a Original Model Publicatio.
b Included in the quantitative data synthesis.
c For Simple Rules, slightly conclusive cases are categorized as malign.
d The cut value is independent of the utilized test type.
e The cut value is different for pre- and post-menopausal women.
Obtained from: http:/humupd.oxfordjournals.org/at Aston University on January 26th, 2014

Model

Cut

Study(n)

Centersa (n)

Sensitivity

Specificity

Morphological Punctuation Systems

Sassone

9

19

19

0.85 [0.77;0.90]

0.80 [0.73;0.86]

Lerner

3

9

17

0.80 [0.70;0.86]

0.61 [0.53;0.68]

Depriest

5

8

8

0.90 [ 0.81;0.95]

0.68 [0.57;0.77]

Ferrazzi

9

7

7

0.86 [0.77;0.91]

0.80 [0.66;0.89]

Ultrasound Rules

Simple Rules

n/ab

5

17

0.93 [0.89;0.95]

0.81 [0.76;0.85]

Risk of Malignancy Indexes (RMI)

RMI I

200

23

41

0.72 [0.67;0.76]

0.92 [0.89;0.93]

RMI II

200

15

32

0.75 [0.69;0.80]

0.87 [0.84;0.90]

RMI III

200

9

19

0.70 [0.60;0.78]

0.91 [0.88;0.93]

RMI IV

450

3

13

0.68 [0.59;0.76]

0.94 [0.91;0.96]

Logistical Regression Models

Tailor

50%

6

24

0.35 [0.24;0.49]

0.96 [0.94;0.98]

LRa

25%

3

20

0.76 [0.70;0.81]

0.87 [0.82;0.90]

LRb

60%

4

21

0.82 [0.77;0.86]

0.78 [0.73;0.83]

Prompeler

10%

2

10

0.61 [0.46;0.74]

0.81 [0.70;0.89]

Jokubkiene

12%

2

20

0.77 [0.71;0.82]

0.87 [0.83;0.89]

IOTA LR2

10%

3

13

0.92 [0.88;0.95]

0.83 [0.77;0.88]

Artificial Neural Network

ANN1

45%

3

20

0.77 [0.71;0.82]

0.86 [0.80;0.90]

ANN2

60%

4

21

0.97 [0.95;0.98]

0.37 [0.31;0.44]

Table 2 Summary of Contained (Sensitivity and Specificity) Estimates and 95%-Confidence Intervals
a For outcomes per specific center, herein are only shown centers on multicenter studies which contributed with at least 3 benign cases and 3 malign cases.
b For simple rules, slightly conclusive cases were categorized as malign. Obtained from http:/humupd.oxfordjournals.org/at Aston University on January 26, 2014

The Simple Rules ultrasound study and the IOTA LR2 logistical regression had the best results over sensitivity and specificity. Subjectivity and dependence on the ultrasound operators experience and skill are part of the criticisms leveled at the transvaginal ultrasonography as a diagnostic approach to women with adnexal masses. Thus the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis -IOTA- was aimed at solving such issue apart from developing models and rules that enable less experienced operators to copy the "experts’" results. The IOTA study developed simple rules and mathematical models based on logistical regression (LR 1-2), which are very easy to utilize in clinical practice in order to assess the malignancy risk of adnexal masses.18 Such models have been externally and exploratively validated by achieving extremely good outcomes, that is to say, close to those obtained by an expert ultrasound operator (Table 3).

Roma study

Masses

Sensitivity

Limit of inferior confidence

Limit of superior confidence

Specifity

Limit of inferior confidence

Limit of superior confidence

Anton 2012

128

0.76

0.63

0.86

0.82

0.7

0.9

Jacob 2011

127

0.86

0.74

0.94

0.87

0.77

0.94

Lenhard 2011

427

0.77

0.69

0.83

0.95

0.92

0.97

Moore 2009

531

0.86

0.8

0.91

0.74

0.7

0.79

Moore 2011

472

0.81

0.71

0.88

0.75

0.7

0.79

Pitta 2013

176

0.57

0.43

0.69

0.88

0.81

0.93

Presl J 2012

552

0.8

0.61

0.92

0.85

0.82

0.88

VanGorp 2011

389

0.85

0.79

0.9

0.8

0.74

0.85

Table 3 Roma Study
Obtained from http:/humupd.oxfordjournals.org/at Aston University on January 26th, 2014

IOTA assessment model

(http://www.iotagroup.org/adnexmodel/site%20iota.html)

  1. Age of patient (years)
  2. Referral Oncology Center
  3. Maximal diameter of lesion (mm)
  4. Maximum diameter of solid part (mm)
  5. More than 10 locules
  6. Number of papillary projections
  7. Acoustic shadows present
  8. Ascites
  9. CA125 (U/ml) 

All required data are input to a calculator and the following risks are detected: Chance of Benign Tumor

Risk of Malignancy:

  1. Risk of Borderline
  2. Risk of EC I Ovary Cancer
  3. Risk of EC II. IV Ovary Cancer
  4. Risk of Metastasis

It is worth mentioning that almost all existing diagnosis approaches -including IOTA LR2 and Simple Rules- are based on patients scheduled for surgical treatment and they utilize the finally histological outcome as their reference standard. There is no information available in relation to the group of women who were conservatively observed or managed and the final outcome of likely complications or malign transformation of the adnexal mass such as rupture, twisting, hemorrhage, etc.

Conclusion

Nowadays the review of different studies and systematic research prove that both IOTA LR2 and Simple Rules are the best diagnosis approaches available in order to differentiate benign and malign adnexal masses beforehand. Such disquisition is vitally important for women of reproductive age, as it deals with fertility preservation. Furthermore, having obtained predictive outcomes over benign diseases, women are more likely to be treated by obstetrician-gynecologists (OB-GYN) or in general hospitals and patients given a diagnostically suspected malignancy would be referred to and treated by gynecologic oncologists.

Acknowledgements

None.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Registro de Cáncer de Lima Metropolitana. 2012.
  2. Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN). Epithelial ovarian cancer, a national clinical guideline. Edinburgh, Scotland: SIGN; 2003.
  3. Myers ER, Bastian LA, Havrilesky LJ, et al. Management of Adnexal Mass. Evid Rep Technol Assess (Full Rep). 2006;(130):1–145.
  4. Le T, Giede C, Salem S, et al. Initial evaluation and referral guidelines for management of pelvic/ovarian masses. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2009;31(7):668–680.
  5. Dodge JE, Covens A, Lacchetti C, et al. Preoperative identification of a suspicious adnexal mass: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Gynecol Oncol. 2012;126(1):157–166.
  6. Nguyen H, Averette H, Hoskins W, et al. National survey of ovarian carcinoma. Part V. The impact of physician's specialty on patients' survival. Cancer. 1993;72(12):3663–3670.
  7. Mayer AR, Chambers SK, Graves E, et al. Ovarian cancer staging: does it require a gynecologic oncologist? Gynecol Oncol. 1992;47(2):223–227.
  8. Chan JK, Chan JK, Shin JY, et al. Influence of the gynaecologic oncologist on the survival of ovarian cancer patients. Obstet Gynecol. 2007;109(6):1342–1350.
  9. Earle CC, Schrag D, Neville BA, et al. Effect of surgeon specialty on processes of care and outcomes for ovarian cancer patients. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2006;98(3):172–180.
  10. Engelen MK, Kas H, Willemse P, et al. Surgery by consultant gynecologic oncologist improves survival in patients with ovarian carcinoma. Cancer. 2005;106(3):589–598.
  11. Liu J, Xu Y, Wang J. Ultrasonography, computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging for diagnosis of ovarian carcinoma. Eur J Radiol. 2007;62(3):328–334.
  12.  Geomini P, Kruitwagen R, Bremer GL, et al. The accuracy of risk scores in predicting ovarian malignancy: a systematic review. Obstet Gynecol. 2009;113(2 Pt 1):384–394.
  13. Geomini P, Kluivers K, Moret E, et al. Evaluation of adnexal masses with three-dimensional ultrasonography. Obstet Gynecol. 2006;108(5):1167–1175.
  14.  Laban M, Metawee H, Elyan A, et al. Three-dimensional ultrasound and three-dimensional power Doppler in the assessment of ovarian tumors. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2007;99(3):201–205.
  15. Valentin L. Gray scale sonography, subjective evaluation of the color Doppler image and measurement of blood flow velocity for distinguishing benign and malignant tumors of suspected adnexal origin. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 1997;72(1):63–72.
  16. Van Calster B, Timmerman D, Bourne T, et al. Discrimination between benign and malignant adnexal masses by specialist ultrasound examination versus serum CA-125. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2007;99(22):1706–1714.
  17. Kaijser J, Ahmad Sayasneh A, Van Hoorde K, et al. Presurgical diagnosis of adnexal tumours using mathematical models and scoring systems: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod Update. 2014;20(3):449–462.
  18. Timmerman D, Testa AC, Bourne T, et al. International ovarian tumor analysis group. logistic regression model to distinguish between the benign and malignant adnexal mass before surgery: a multicenter study by the International ovarian tumor analysis group. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23(34):8794–8801.
Creative Commons Attribution License

© . This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and build upon your work non-commercially.