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.

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.

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

Comparison of O-RADS with the ADNEX model and IOTA SR for risk stratification of adnexal lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis

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

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

Efficacy of IOTA simple rules, O-RADS, and CA125 to distinguish benign and malignant adnexal masses

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

Predicting Malignancy in Thyroid Nodules Based on Conventional Ultrasound and Elastography: the Value of Predictive Models in a Multi-Center Study

Adnexal masses: Diagnostic performance of contrast‐enhanced ultrasound using the simple rules from the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis group

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

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

Validation of the diagnostic efficacy of O-RADS in adnexal masses

External validation of ultrasound-based models for discrimination between benign and malignant adnexal masses in Italy: the prospective multicenter IOTA phase 6 study

Diagnostic Accuracy of Ultrasound Classifications – O-RADS US V2022, O-RADS US V2020, and IOTA SR – in Distinguishing Benign and Malignant Adnexal Masses: Enhanced by Combining O-RADS US V2022 with Tumor Marker HE4

Accuracy and reproducibility of the O-RADS MRI risk stratification system based on non-DCE MRI in the assessment of adnexal masses

Distinguishing the benign and malignant adnexal mass: an external validation of prognostic models

Comparison of the Value of Contrast Enhanced Ultrasound and International Ovarian Tumor Analysis ( IOTA) Simple Rules in the Differential Diagnosis of Adnexal Tumors

Indirect comparison of the diagnostic performance of 18F-FDG PET/CT and MRI in differentiating benign and malignant ovarian or adnexal tumors: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Validation of American College of Radiology Ovarian-Adnexal Reporting and Data System Ultrasound (O-RADS US): Analysis on 1054 Adnexal Masses