ArticleBiomarkers in cancer2019
Multivariate Index Assay Is Superior to CA125 and HE4 Testing in Detection of Ovarian Malignancy in African-American Women.
Article in Biomarkers in cancer, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- NeurostimML: a machine learning model for predicting neurostimulation-induced tissue damage.Journal of neural engineering · 2024Article
- Management of the Adnexal Mass: Considerations for the Family Medicine Physician.Frontiers in medicine · 2022Article
- A nomogram model based on clinical markers for predicting malignancy of ovarian tumors.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo review and analyze the serum values of risk of ovarian malignancy algorithm (ROMA) and multivariate index assay (MIA) in subgroups of women who underwent surgery for adnexal masses to determine sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values for the detection of malignancy in different ethnic populations.
methodsSerum samples from 2 prospective trials of 1029 women in which 274 women diagnosed with malignancy were analyzed for ROMA scores and MIA results. Biomarker data were obtained from the previous prospective studies that validated the MIA test. Of these, 250 women were Caucasian (C) and 24 were African-American (AA). Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and confidence intervals for preoperative test results were calculated using DTComPair package of the R programming language. In premenopausal women, a ROMA value equal to or greater than 1.14 indicates a high risk of finding epithelial ovarian cancer. In premenopausal women, MIA values greater than 5.0 are associated with a greater risk of malignancy. In postmenopausal women, a ROMA value equal to or greater than 2.99 indicates a high risk of finding epithelial ovarian cancer. In postmenopausal women, MIA values greater than 4.4 are associated with a greater risk of malignancy.
resultsPrimary ovarian malignancy was diagnosed in 179 cases (167 C/12 AA) and metastatic disease to the ovary in an additional 27 cases (22 C/5 AA). Overall results are shown below.
conclusionsOur results demonstrate that ROMA in AA women with adnexal masses have lower sensitivity for the detection of malignancy than does MIA. Implementation of MIA in the evaluation of adnexal masses will increase the sensitivity of the detection of malignancy compared with ROMA, with the most marked results in AA women.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.