Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36178788›Full record

ArticleUltrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology2023

Benign descriptors and ADNEX in two-step strategy to estimate risk of malignancy in ovarian tumors: retrospective validation in IOTA5 multicenter cohort.

C Landolfo, T Bourne, W Froyman, B Van Calster, J Ceusters, A C Testa, L Wynants, P Sladkevicius, C Van Holsbeke, E Domali and 21 more

Open access · hybridAbstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
9.2field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 52 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Diagnostic accuracy of ultrasound models for assessment of ovarian tumors: systematic review and meta-analysis.Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Comparative Diagnostic Performance of IOTA Simple Rules, O-RADS US, and Subjective Assessment in Differentiating Benign from Malignant Adnexal Masses.Journal of ultrasound in medicine : official journal of the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Terms, definitions and measurements to describe the sonographic features of adnexal tumors: updated consensus opinion from the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis (IOTA) Group.Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology · 2026
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Clinical utility of ultrasonography in pediatric and adolescent gynecology: retrospective review of 1313 ultrasound examinations.Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology · 2025
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Evaluating use of two-step International Ovarian Tumor Analysis strategy to classify adnexal masses identified in pregnancy: pilot study.Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology · 2024
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

31 authors at 20 institutions in 10 countries.

C LandolfoDepartment of Development and Regeneration, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0001-9808-7957
T BourneDepartment of Development and Regeneration, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
W FroymanDepartment of Development and Regeneration, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0002-1398-9124
B Van CalsterDepartment of Development and Regeneration, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
J CeustersDepartment of Development and Regeneration, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
A C TestaDepartment of Woman, Child and Public Health, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, Rome, Italy.
L WynantsDepartment of Development and Regeneration, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
P SladkeviciusDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Skåne University Hospital, Malmö, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0001-9563-8135
C Van HolsbekeDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Ziekenhuis Oost-Limburg, Genk, Belgium.
E DomaliFirst Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Alexandra Hospital, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece.
R FruscioClinic of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Milano-Bicocca, San Gerardo Hospital, Monza, Italy.
E EpsteinDepartment of Clinical Science and Education, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
D FranchiPreventive Gynecology Unit, Division of Gynecology, European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy.
M J KudlaDepartment of Perinatology and Oncological Gynecology, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Medical University of Silesia, Katowice, Poland.ORCID 0000-0003-0928-3433
V ChiappaDepartment of Gynecologic Oncology, National Cancer Institute of Milan, Milan, Italy.
J L AlcazarDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Clinica Universidad de Navarra, School of Medicine, Pamplona, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-9700-0853
F P G LeoneDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Biomedical and Clinical Sciences Institute L. Sacco, University of Milan, Milan, Italy.
F BuonomoInstitute for Maternal and Child Health, IRCCS 'Burlo Garofolo', Trieste, Italy.
M E CocciaDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Florence, Florence, Italy.
S GuerrieroDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Cagliari, Policlinico Universitario Duilio Casula, Cagliari, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-1359-7155
N DeoDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Whipps Cross Hospital, London, UK.
L JokubkieneDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Skåne University Hospital, Malmö, Sweden.
L SavelliGynecology and Physiopathology of Human Reproduction Unit, Sant'Orsola-Malpighi Hospital of Bologna, Bologna, Italy.
D FischerovaGynecologic Oncology Centre, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General University Hospital in Prague, Prague, Czech Republic.ORCID 0000-0002-7224-3218
A CzekierdowskiFirst Department of Gynecological Oncology and Gynecology, Medical University of Lublin, Lublin, Poland.
J KaijserDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Ikazia Hospital, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
A CoosemansLaboratory of Tumor Immunology and Immunotherapy, Department of Oncology, Leuven Cancer Institute, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
G ScambiaDepartment of Woman, Child and Public Health, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, Rome, Italy.
I VergoteDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
D TimmermanDepartment of Development and Regeneration, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
L ValentinDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Skåne University Hospital, Malmö, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0002-3830-6414
Lund University · SERega Institute for Medical Research · BEKU Leuven · BEUniversità Cattolica del Sacro Cuore · ITAgostino Gemelli University Polyclinic · ITCharles University · CZClinica Universidad de Navarra · ESEuropean Institute of Oncology · ITIkazia Ziekenhuis · NLImperial College Healthcare NHS Trust · GBIRCCS Azienda Ospedliero-Universitaria di Bologna Policlinico di Sant'Orsola · ITIRCCS Materno Infantile Burlo Garofolo · ITKarolinska Institutet · SELeiden University Medical Center · NLMaastricht University · NLMedical University of Lublin · PLMedical University of Silesia · PLNational and Kapodistrian University of Athens · GRNational Cancer Institute · MYUniversity of Cagliari · IT

Funding

Allmänna Sjukhusets i Malmö Stiftelse för bekämpande av cancerAvtal om läkarutbildning och forskning (ALF)-medelInternal Funds KU Leuven C24/15/037Landstingsfinansierad Regional ForskningLinbury Trust Grant LIN 2600National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Biomedical Research CentreResearch Foundation-Flanders (FWO) G097322N /G049312N/G0B4716N/12F3114NSwedish Research Council K2014-99X-22475-01-3, Dnr 2013-02282
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivePrevious work has suggested that the ultrasound-based benign simple descriptors (BDs) can reliably exclude malignancy in a large proportion of women presenting with an adnexal mass. This study aimed to validate a modified version of the BDs and to validate a two-step strategy to estimate the risk of malignancy, in which the modified BDs are followed by the Assessment of Different NEoplasias in the adneXa (ADNEX) model if modified BDs do not apply.

methodsThis was a retrospective analysis using data from the 2-year interim analysis of the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis (IOTA) Phase-5 study, in which consecutive patients with at least one adnexal mass were recruited irrespective of subsequent management (conservative or surgery). The main outcome was classification of tumors as benign or malignant, based on histology or on clinical and ultrasound information during 1 year of follow-up. Multiple imputation was used when outcome based on follow-up was uncertain according to predefined criteria.

resultsA total of 8519 patients were recruited at 36 centers between 2012 and 2015. We excluded patients who were already in follow-up at recruitment and all patients from 19 centers that did not fulfil our criteria for good-quality surgical and follow-up data, leaving 4905 patients across 17 centers for statistical analysis. Overall, 3441 (70%) tumors were benign, 978 (20%) malignant and 486 (10%) uncertain. The modified BDs were applicable in 1798/4905 (37%) tumors, of which 1786 (99.3%) were benign. The two-step strategy based on ADNEX without CA125 had an area under the receiver-operating-characteristics curve (AUC) of 0.94 (95% CI, 0.92-0.96). The risk of malignancy was slightly underestimated, but calibration varied between centers. A sensitivity analysis in which we expanded the definition of uncertain outcome resulted in 1419 (29%) tumors with uncertain outcome and an AUC of the two-step strategy without CA125 of 0.93 (95% CI, 0.91-0.95).

conclusionA large proportion of adnexal masses can be classified as benign by the modified BDs. For the remaining masses, the ADNEX model can be used to estimate the risk of malignancy. This two-step strategy is convenient for clinical use. © 2022 The Authors. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

Indexed as

Adnexal DiseasesOvarian NeoplasmsCA-125 AntigenDiagnosis, DifferentialFemaleHumansRetrospective StudiesSensitivity and SpecificityUltrasonographyCA-125 AntigenADNEX modelbenign simple descriptorIOTAovarian neoplasmultrasonographyvalidation study

Identifiers

PMID36178788
PMCPMC10107772
OpenAlexW4298087795

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.