Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26753953›Full record

ArticleTumour biology : the journal of the International Society for Oncodevelopmental Biology and Medicine2016

Can ROMA algorithm stratify ovarian tumor patients better when being based on specific age ranges instead of the premenopausal and postmenopausal status?

Anita Chudecka-Głaz, Aneta Cymbaluk-Płoska, Jolanta Jastrzębska, Janusz Menkiszak

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Tumour biology : the journal of the International Society for Oncodevelopmental Biology and Medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 14% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Anita Chudecka-GłazDepartment of Gynecological Surgery and Gynecological Oncology of Adults and Adolescents, Pomeranian Medical University, Al. Powstańców Wielkopolskich 72, 70-111, Szczecin, Poland. anitagl@poczta.onet.pl.
Aneta Cymbaluk-PłoskaDepartment of Gynecological Surgery and Gynecological Oncology of Adults and Adolescents, Pomeranian Medical University, Al. Powstańców Wielkopolskich 72, 70-111, Szczecin, Poland.
Jolanta JastrzębskaHigh School Number 2 in Szczecin, Szczecin, Poland.
Janusz MenkiszakDepartment of Gynecological Surgery and Gynecological Oncology of Adults and Adolescents, Pomeranian Medical University, Al. Powstańców Wielkopolskich 72, 70-111, Szczecin, Poland.
Pomeranian Medical University · PL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

After several years of research, HE4 was found to be characterized by slightly worse sensitivity but significantly higher specificity as compared with CA125. Further studies led to the diagnostic potential of both markers (CA125 and HE4) being combined in a single risk of malignancy algorithm (ROMA) algorithm. The objective of this study was to assess the diagnostic capabilities of the ROMA algorithm using age ranges instead of dichotomization of patients according to the pre- and postmenopausal status. A total of 413 female patients were included in the study, including 162 premenopausal and 251 postmenopausal women. Calculation of the final ROMA values was achieved by means of stepwise reduction of coefficients in the proposed formula of: %ROMA = exp(PI)/[1-exp(PI)]*100) and PI = A + W(HE4)(*)ln(HE4) + W(CA125)(*)ln (CA125) and the arrangement of values with consideration to the age group, HE4 level, differentiation of modification, and directional coefficients as well as determination of individual deviations affecting the widening of the median. The cutoff value of modified algorithm ROMA P for the entire study population was calculated from receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve and DeLong method at the levels of 23.5 %. Marked higher sensitivity and negative predictive value (NPV) values are observed for the standard ROMA algorithm while higher specificity and positive predictive value (PPV) values are observed for the modified algorithm ROMA P. The proposed age-related modification of algorithm calculation does not require the patients being dichotomized according to their pre- or postmenopausal status, and satisfactory diagnostic values may be obtained using a single cutoff point for the entire population.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAlgorithmsBiomarkers, TumorCA-125 AntigenFemaleHumansMiddle AgedOvarian NeoplasmsPostmenopausePremenopauseProteinsROC CurveSensitivity and SpecificityBiomarkers, TumorCA-125 AntigenProteinsWAP Four-Disulfide Core Domain Protein 2WFDC2 protein, humanCA125DiagnosisHE4Ovarian cancerROMA algorithm

Identifiers

PMID26753953
PMCPMC4990599
OpenAlexW2234097119

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.