Prospective external validation of IOTA methods for classifying adnexal masses and retrospective assessment of two‐step strategy using benign descriptors and ADNEX model: Portuguese multicenter study
Authors: Borges A. L. , Brito M. , Ambrósio P. , Condeço R. , Pinto P. , Ambrósio B. , Mahomed F. , Gama J. M. R. , Bernardo M. J. , Gouveia A. I. , Djokovic D. 
Published: March 2024

Objectives

To externally and prospectively validate the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis (IOTA) Simple Rules (SRs), Logistic Regression model 2 (LR2) and Assessment of Different NEoplasias in the adneXa (ADNEX) model in a Portuguese population, comparing these approaches with subjective assessment and the risk‐of‐malignancy index (RMI), as well as with each other. This study also aimed to retrospectively validate the IOTA two‐step strategy, using modified benign simple descriptors (MBDs) followed by the ADNEX model in cases in which MBDs were not applicable.

Methods

This was a prospective multicenter diagnostic accuracy study conducted between January 2016 and December 2021 of consecutive patients with an ultrasound diagnosis of at least one adnexal tumor, who underwent surgery at one of three tertiary referral centers in Lisbon, Portugal. All ultrasound assessments were performed by Level‐II or ‐III sonologists with IOTA certification. Patient clinical data and serum CA 125 levels were collected from hospital databases. Each adnexal mass was classified as benign or malignant using subjective assessment, RMI, IOTA SRs, LR2 and the ADNEX model (with and without CA 125). The reference standard was histopathological diagnosis. In the second phase, all adnexal tumors were classified retrospectively using the two‐step strategy (MBDs + ADNEX). Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, positive and negative likelihood ratios and overall accuracy were determined for all methods. Receiver‐operating‐characteristics curves were constructed and corresponding areas under the curve (AUC) were determined for RMI, LR2, the ADNEX model and the two‐step strategy. The ADNEX model calibration plots were constructed using locally estimated scatterplot smoothing (LOESS).

Results

Of the 571 patients included in the study, 428 had benign disease and 143 had malignant disease (prevalence of malignancy, 25.0%), of which 42 had borderline ovarian tumor, 93 had primary invasive adnexal cancer and eight had metastatic tumors in the adnexa. Subjective assessment had an overall sensitivity of 97.9% and a specificity of 83.6% for distinguishing between benign and malignant lesions. RMI showed high specificity (95.6%) but very low sensitivity (58.7%), with an AUC of 0.913. The IOTA SRs were applicable in 80.0% of patients, with a sensitivity of 94.8% and specificity of 98.6%. The IOTA LR2 had a sensitivity of 84.6%, specificity of 86.9% and an AUC of 0.939, at a malignancy risk cut‐off of 10%. At the same cut‐off, the sensitivity, specificity and AUC for the ADNEX model with vs without CA 125 were 95.8% vs 98.6%, 82.5% vs 79.7% and 0.962 vs 0.960, respectively. The ADNEX model gave heterogeneous results for distinguishing between benign masses and different subtypes of malignancy, with the highest AUC (0.991) for discriminating benign masses from primary invasive adnexal cancer Stages II–IV, and the lowest AUC (0.696) for discriminating primary invasive adnexal cancer Stage I from metastatic lesion in the adnexa. The calibration plot suggested underestimation of the risk by the ADNEX model compared with the observed proportion of malignancy. The MBDs were applicable in 26.3% (150/571) of cases, of which none was malignant. The two‐step strategy using the ADNEX model in the second step only, with and without CA 125, had AUCs of 0.964 and 0.961, respectively, which was similar to applying the ADNEX model in all patients.

Conclusions

The IOTA methods showed good‐to‐excellent performance in the Portuguese population, outperforming RMI. The ADNEX model was superior to other methods in terms of accuracy, but interpretation of its ability to distinguish between malignant subtypes was limited by sample size and large differences in the prevalence of tumor subtypes. The IOTA MBDs are reliable in identifying benign disease. The two‐step strategy comprising application of MBDs followed by the ADNEX model if MBDs are not applicable, is suitable for daily clinical practice, circumventing the need to calculate the risk of malignancy in all patients. © 2024 International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.