Abstract:ABSTRACTObjectiveTo evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis (IOTA) Assessment of Different NEoplasias in the adneXa (ADNEX) model in the preoperative diagnosis of adnexal masses using data from a gynecological oncology center in China.MethodsThis was a single‐center, retrospective diagnostic accuracy study based on ultrasound data collected prospectively, between May and December 2017, from 278 patients with at least one adnexal (ovarian, paraovarian or tubal) mass. Clinical and pathologic information, serum CA 125 level and ultrasonographic findings were collected. All patients underwent surgery and the histopathological diagnosis was used as reference standard. The final diagnosis was classified into five tumor types according to the ADNEX model: benign ovarian tumor, borderline ovarian tumor (BOT), Stage‐I ovarian cancer (OC), Stages‐II–IV OC and ovarian metastasis. Receiver–operating characteristics (ROC) curve analysis was used to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of the ADNEX model, with and without inclusion of CA 125 level in the model.ResultsOf the 278 women included, 203 (73.0%) had a benign ovarian tumor and 75 (27.0%) had a malignant ovarian tumor, including 18 (6.5%) with BOT, 17 (6.1%) with Stage‐I OC, 32 (11.5%) with Stages‐II–IV OC and eight (2.9%) with ovarian metastasis. The performance of the IOTA ADNEX model was good for discriminating between benign and malignant tumors, with an area under the ROC curve (AUC) of 0.94 (95% CI, 0.91–0.97) when CA 125 was included in the model and AUC of 0.93 (95% CI, 0.90–0.96) without CA 125. The AUC values of the model including CA 125 ranged between 0.61 and 0.99 for distinguishing between the different types of tumor, and it showed excellent performance in discriminating between a benign ovarian tumor and Stages‐II–IV OC, with an AUC of 0.99 (95% CI, 0.97–1.00). The performance of the model was less effective at distinguishing between BOT and Stage‐I OC and between Stages‐II–IV OC and ovarian metastasis, with AUC values of 0.61 (95% CI, 0.43–0.77) and 0.78 (95% CI, 0.62–0.90), respectively. Although inclusion of CA 125 did not alter the performance of the ADNEX model in discriminating between benign and malignant lesions (AUC of 0.94 and 0.93 with and without CA 125 level, respectively; P = 0.54), the inclusion of CA 125 in the model improved its performance in discriminating between Stage‐I OC and Stages‐II–IV OC (AUC increased from 0.81 to 0.92; P = 0.04) and between Stages‐II–IV OC and metastatic cancer (AUC increased from 0.58 to 0.78; P = 0.01).ConclusionsThe IOTA ADNEX model showed good to excellent performance in distinguishing between benign and malignant adnexal masses and between the different types of ovarian tumor in a Chinese setting. Based on our findings, the ADNEX model has high value in clinical practice and can aid in the preoperative diagnosis of patients with an adnexal mass. Copyright © 2019 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Evaluation of Artificial Neural Networks Models for Predicting Ovarian Malignancy in Patients with Adnexal Masses

Comparison of the Diagnostic Performances of the Assessment of Different NEoplasias in the Adnexa Model, Simple Rules Model, and Risk of Malignancy Index for Adnexal Masses in a Gynecological Oncology Centre in China

Comparison of the Diagnostic Performances of Ultrasound-Based Models for Predicting Malignancy in Patients with Adnexal Masses

Performance of IOTA ADNEX Model in Evaluating Adnexal Masses in a Gynecological Oncology Center in China.

Value of Assessment of Different Neoplasias in the Adnexa in the Differential Diagnosis of Malignant Ovarian Tumor and Benign Ovarian Tumor: A Meta-analysis

ADNEX Model-Based Diagnosis of Ovarian Cancer Using MRI Images

Clinical Utility and Diagnostic Accuracy of ROMA, RMI, ADNEX, HE4, and CA125 in the Prediction of Malignancy in Adnexal Masses

Artificial neural networks model for prediction of lymph node metastases in gastric cancer basing on biological behavior information of MSCT

Artificial Neural Network Models Based on Questionnaire Survey for Prediction of Breast Cancer Risk among Chinese Women in Shanghai

Development and validation of prediction model for early warning of ovarian metastasis risk of endometrial carcinoma

Comparison of ultrasound−based ADNEX model with magnetic resonance imaging for discriminating adnexal masses: a multi-center study

Ultrasound image analysis using deep neural networks for discriminating between benign and malignant ovarian tumors: comparison with expert subjective assessment

Preoperative prediction of hepatocellular carcinoma microvascular invasion based on magnetic resonance imaging feature extraction artificial neural network

Development, Validation and Comparison of Artificial Neural Network Models and Logistic Regression Models Predicting Survival of Unresectable Pancreatic Cancer

Machine-learning diagnostic models for ovarian tumors

Artificial intelligence-based preoperative prediction system for diagnosis and prognosis in epithelial ovarian cancer: A multicenter study

Using HE4, RMI, ROMA and CPH-I in the Differential Diagnosis of Adnexal Masses

Using Machine Learning to Predict Ovarian Cancer.

Comparison of the value of the GI-RADS and ADNEX models in the diagnosis of adnexal tumors by junior physicians

Applying Multi-Modal Magnetic Resonance Imaging Radiomics in Differentiating Benign and Malignant Ovarian Tumors

Artificial intelligence-based models enabling accurate diagnosis of ovarian cancer using laboratory tests in China: a multicentre, retrospective cohort study