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

Ben Van Calster, Kirsten Van Hoorde, Lil Valentin, Antonia C Testa, Daniela Fischerova, Caroline Van Holsbeke, Luca Savelli, Dorella Franchi, Elisabeth Epstein, Jeroen Kaijser, Vanya Van Belle, Artur Czekierdowski, Stefano Guerriero, Robert Fruscio, Chiara Lanzani, Felice Scala, Tom Bourne, Dirk Timmerman, International Ovarian Tumour Analysis Group, Ben Van Calster, Kirsten Van Hoorde, Lil Valentin, Antonia C Testa, Daniela Fischerova, Caroline Van Holsbeke, Luca Savelli, Dorella Franchi, Elisabeth Epstein, Jeroen Kaijser, Vanya Van Belle, Artur Czekierdowski, Stefano Guerriero, Robert Fruscio, Chiara Lanzani, Felice Scala, Tom Bourne, Dirk Timmerman, International Ovarian Tumour Analysis Group

Abstract

Objectives: To develop a risk prediction model to preoperatively discriminate between benign, borderline, stage I invasive, stage II-IV invasive, and secondary metastatic ovarian tumours.

Design: Observational diagnostic study using prospectively collected clinical and ultrasound data.

Setting: 24 ultrasound centres in 10 countries.

Participants: Women with an ovarian (including para-ovarian and tubal) mass and who underwent a standardised ultrasound examination before surgery. The model was developed on 3506 patients recruited between 1999 and 2007, temporally validated on 2403 patients recruited between 2009 and 2012, and then updated on all 5909 patients.

Main outcome measures: Histological classification and surgical staging of the mass.

Results: The Assessment of Different NEoplasias in the adneXa (ADNEX) model contains three clinical and six ultrasound predictors: age, serum CA-125 level, type of centre (oncology centres v other hospitals), maximum diameter of lesion, proportion of solid tissue, more than 10 cyst locules, number of papillary projections, acoustic shadows, and ascites. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) for the classic discrimination between benign and malignant tumours was 0.94 (0.93 to 0.95) on temporal validation. The AUC was 0.85 for benign versus borderline, 0.92 for benign versus stage I cancer, 0.99 for benign versus stage II-IV cancer, and 0.95 for benign versus secondary metastatic. AUCs between malignant subtypes varied between 0.71 and 0.95, with an AUC of 0.75 for borderline versus stage I cancer and 0.82 for stage II-IV versus secondary metastatic. Calibration curves showed that the estimated risks were accurate.

Conclusions: The ADNEX model discriminates well between benign and malignant tumours and offers fair to excellent discrimination between four types of ovarian malignancy. The use of ADNEX has the potential to improve triage and management decisions and so reduce morbidity and mortality associated with adnexal pathology.

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form at www.icmje.org/coi_disclosure.pdf and declare: no support from any organisation for the submitted work; no financial relationships with any organisations that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous three years; no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work.

© Van Calster et al 2014.

Figures

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/instance/4793850/bin/vanb019232.f1_default.jpg
Fig 1 Calibration plots of predicted probabilities for each type of tumour. Data have been calculated using validation data (n=2403). Plots show how well the predicted probabilities (x axis) agree with observed probabilities (y axis). For perfect agreement, the calibration curve falls on the ideal diagonal line. Histograms below plots show distribution of predicted probabilities
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/instance/4793850/bin/vanb019232.f2_default.jpg
Fig 2 Discrimination plot of ADNEX model after it was updated on pooled dataset (n=5909). For each predicted tumour type, box plots of probabilities are presented for each confirmed tumour type (reference standard). Red vertical lines show baseline probabilities for each type of tumour. For example, the baseline probability of a benign tumour is 0.681; for most women with a benign tumour the predicted probability of a benign tumour was higher than 0.9, whereas most women with an ovarian malignancy (most notably stage II-IV cancer) had clearly lower predicted probabilities of a benign tumour

References

    1. Siegel R, Ma J, Zou Z, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2014. CA Cancer J Clin 2014;64:9-29.
    1. Berrino F, De Angelis R, Sant M, Rosso S, Lasota MB, Coebergh JW, et al. Survival for eight major cancers and all cancers combined for European adults diagnosed in 1995-1999: results of the EUROCARE-4 study. Lancet Oncol 2007;8:773-83.
    1. Howlader N, Noone AM, Krapcho M, Garshell J, Miller D, Altekruse SF, et al. SEER cancer statistics review, 1975-2011. National Cancer Institute (Bethesda, MD), Apr 2014. .
    1. Buys SS, Partridge E, Black A, Johnson CC, Lamerato L, Isaacs C, et al. Effect of screening on ovarian cancer mortality: the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Randomized Controlled Trial. JAMA 2011;305:2295-303.
    1. Kobayashi H, Yamada Y, Sado T, Sakata M, Yoshida S, Kawaguchi R, et al. A randomized study of screening for ovarian cancer: a multicenter study in Japan. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2008;18:414-20.
    1. Menon U, Gentry-Maharaj A, Hallett R, Ryan A, Burnell M, Sharma A, et al. Sensitivity and specificity of multimodal and ultrasound screening for ovarian cancer, and stage distribution of detected cancers: results of the prevalence screen of the UK Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening (UKCTOCS). Lancet Oncol 2009;10:327-40.
    1. Earle CC, Schrag D, Neville BA, Yabroff KR, Topor M, Fahey A, et al. Effect of surgeon specialty on processes of care and outcomes for ovarian cancer patients. J Natl Cancer Inst 2006;98:172-80.
    1. Engelen MJA, Kos HE, Willemse PHB, Aalders JG, de Vries EGE, Schaapveld M, et al. Surgery by consultant gynecologic oncologists improves survival in patients with ovarian carcinoma. Cancer 2006;106:589-98.
    1. Bristow RE, Chang J, Ziogas A, Anton-Culver H. Adherence to treatment guidelines for ovarian cancer as a measure of quality care. Obstet Gynecol 2013;121:1226-34.
    1. Woo YL, Kyrgiou M, Bryant A, Everett T, Dickinson HO. Centralisation of services for gynaecological cancers—a Cochrane systematic review. Gynecol Oncol 2012;126:286-90.
    1. Vernooij F, Heintz APM, Witteveen PO, van der Heiden-van der Loo M, Coebergh JW, van der Graaf Y. Specialized care and survival of ovarian cancer patients in the Netherlands: nationwide cohort study. J Natl Cancer Inst 2008;100:399-406.
    1. Bristow RE, Chang J, Ziogas A, Randall LM, Anton-Culver H. High-volume ovarian cancer care: survival impact and disparities in access for advanced-stage disease. Gynecol Oncol 2014;132:403-10.
    1. Verleye L, Vergote I, van der Zee AGJ. Patterns of care in surgery for ovarian cancer in Europe. Eur J Surg Oncol 2010;36(Suppl 1):S108-14.
    1. Daraï E, Fauvet R, Uzan C, Gouy S, Duvillard P, Morice P. Fertility and borderline ovarian tumor: a systematic review of conservative management, risk factors, risk of recurrence and alternative options. Hum Reprod Update 2013;19:151-66.
    1. Hennessy BT, Coleman RL, Markman M. Ovarian cancer. Lancet 2009;374:1371-82.
    1. Van Calster B, Valentin L, Van Holsbeke C, Testa AC, Bourne T, Van Huffel S, et al. Polytomous diagnosis of ovarian tumors as benign, borderline, primary invasive or metastatic: development and validation of standard and kernel-based risk prediction models. BMC Med Res Methodol 2010;10:96.
    1. Timmerman D, Van Calster B, Jurkovic D, Valentin L, Testa AC, Bernard JP, et al. Inclusion of CA-125 does not improve mathematical models developed to distinguish between benign and malignant adnexal tumors. J Clin Oncol 2007;25:4194-200.
    1. Van Calster B, Valentin L, Van Holsbeke C, Zhang J, Jurkovic D, Lissoni AA, et al. A novel approach to predict the likelihood of specific ovarian tumor pathology based on serum CA-125: a multicenter observational study. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2011;20:2420-8.
    1. Vergote I, De Brabanter J, Fyles A, Bertelsen K, Einhorn N, Sevelda P, et al. Prognostic importance of degree of differentiation and cyst rupture in stage I invasive epithelial ovarian carcinoma. Lancet 2001;357:176-82.
    1. Timmerman D, Valentin L, Bourne TH, Collins WP, Verrelst H, Vergote I. Terms, definitions and measurements to describe the sonographic features of adnexal tumors: a consensus opinion from the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis (IOTA) group. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2000;16:500-5.
    1. Timmerman D, Testa AC, Bourne T, Ferrazzi E, Ameye L, Konstantinovic ML, et al. 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;23:8794-801.
    1. Van Holsbeke C, Van Calster B, Testa AC, Domali E, Lu C, Van Huffel S, et al. Prospective internal validation of mathematical models to predict malignancy in adnexal masses: results from the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis study. Clin Cancer Res 2009;15:684-91.
    1. Timmerman D, Van Calster B, Testa AC, Guerriero S, Fischerova D, Lissoni AA, et al. Ovarian cancer prediction in adnexal masses using ultrasound-based logistic regression models: a temporal and external validation study by the IOTA group. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2010;36:226-34.
    1. Kaijser J, Bourne T, Valentin L, Sayasneh A, Van Holsbeke C, Vergote I, et al. Improving strategies for diagnosing ovarian cancer: a summary of the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis (IOTA) studies. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2013;41:9-20.
    1. Timmerman D, Testa AC, Bourne T, Ameye L, Jurkovic D, Van Holsbeke C, et al. Simple ultrasound-based rules for the diagnosis of ovarian cancer. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2008;31:681-90.
    1. Timmerman D, Ameye L, Fischerova D, Epstein E, Melis GB, Guerriero S, et al. Simple ultrasound rules to distinguish between benign and malignant adnexal masses before surgery: prospective validation by the IOTA group. BMJ 2010;341:c6839.
    1. Heintz APM, Odicino F, Maisonneuve P, Quinn MA, Benedet JL, Creasman WT, et al. Carcinoma of the ovary. Int J Gynecol Obstet 2006;95(Suppl 1):S161-92.
    1. Sterne JAC, White IR, Carlin JB, Spratt M, Royston P, Kenward MG, et al. Multiple imputation for missing data in epidemiological and clinical research: potential and pitfalls. BMJ 2009;338:b2393.
    1. Harrell FE Jr. Regression modeling strategies: with applications to linear models, logistic regression, and survival analysis. Springer, 2001.
    1. Steyerberg EW. Clinical prediction models: a practical approach to development, validation, and updating. Springer, 2009.
    1. Wynants L, Timmerman D, Bourne T, Van Huffel S, Van Calster B. Screening for data clustering in multicenter studies: the residual intraclass correlation. BMC Med Res Methodol 2013;13:128.
    1. Royston P, Sauerbrei W. Multivariable model-building: a pragmatic approach to regression analysis based on fractional polynomials for modelling continuous variables. Wiley, 2008.
    1. Kuss O, McLerran D. A note on the estimation of the multinomial logistic model with correlated responses in SAS. Comput Methods Programs Biomed 2007;87:262-9.
    1. Van Houwelingen JC, Le Cessie S. Predictive value of statistical models. Stat Med 1990;9:1303-25.
    1. Altman DG, Vergouwe Y, Royston P, Moons KGM. Prognosis and prognostic research: validating a prognostic model. BMJ 2009;338:b605.
    1. Van Calster B, Vergouwe Y, Looman CW, Van Belle V, Timmerman D, Steyerberg EW. Assessing the discriminative ability of risk models for more than two outcome categories. Eur J Epidemiol 2012;27:761-70.
    1. Van Calster B, Van Belle V, Vergouwe Y, Timmerman D, Van Huffel S, Steyerberg EW. Extending the c-statistic to nominal polytomous outcomes: the Polytomous Discrimination Index. Stat Med 2012;31:2610-26.
    1. Van Hoorde K, Vergouwe Y, Timmerman D, Van Huffel S, Steyerberg EW, Van Calster B. Assessing calibration of multinomial risk prediction models. Stat Med 2014;33:2585-96.
    1. Hosmer DW, Lemeshow S. Applied logistic regression. Wiley, 2000.
    1. Kaijser J, Sayasneh A, Van Hoorde K, Ghaem-Maghami S, Bourne T, Timmerman D, et al. Presurgical diagnosis of adnexal tumours using mathematical models and scoring systems: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod Update 2014;20:449-62.
    1. Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. Management of suspected ovarian masses in premenopausal women. Green-top guideline No 62. RCOG, Nov 2011. .
    1. Testa A, Kaijser J, Wynants L, Fischerova D, Van Holsbeke C, Franchi D, et al. Strategies to diagnose ovarian cancer: new evidence from phase 3 of the multicentre international IOTA study. Br J Cancer 2014;111:680-8.
    1. Davelaar EM, van Kamp GJ, Verstraeten RA, Kenemans P. Comparison of seven immunoassays for the quantification of CA 125 antigen in serum. Clin Chem 1998;44:1417-22.
    1. Education and Practical Standards Committee, European Federation of Societies for Ultrasound in Medicine and Biology (EFSUMB). Minimum training recommendations for the practice of medical ultrasound. Ultraschall Med 2006;27:79-105.
    1. Sayasneh A, Wynants L, Preisler J, Kaijser J, Johnson S, Stalder C, et al. Multicentre external validation of IOTA prediction models and RMI by operators with varied training. Br J Cancer 2013;108:2448-54.
    1. Nunes N, Ambler G, Hoo WL, Naftalin J, Foo X, Widschwendter M, et al. A prospective validation of the IOTA logistic regression models (LR1 and LR2) in comparison to subjective pattern recognition for the diagnosis of ovarian cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2013;23:1583-9.
    1. Jacobs I, Oram D, Fairbanks J, Turner J, Frost C, Grudzinskas JG. A risk of malignancy index incorporating CA 125, ultrasound and menopausal status for the accurate preoperative diagnosis of ovarian cancer. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1990;97:922-9.
    1. Moore RG, McMeekin DS, Brown AK, DiSilvestro P, Miller MC, Allard WJ, et al. A novel multiple marker bioassay utilizing HE4 and CA125 for the prediction of ovarian cancer in patients with a pelvic mass. Gynecol Oncol 2009;112;40-6.

Source: PubMed

3
订阅