Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40481532›Full record

ArticleJournal of ovarian research2025

Accurate prediction of benign and malignant adnexal tumors in surgical resection and conservative treatment: construction and external validation of a diagnostic model based on CEUS, HE4, and O-RADS US v2022 evaluation.

Chun Liu, Yi Zhu, Keju Dai, Bo Tan, Hao Dong, Jing Lin, Rong He, Man Lu, Yuan Li

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of ovarian research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

9 authors.

Chun LiuDepartment of Ultrasound, Sichuan Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Sichuan Cancer Hospital & Institute, Sichuan Cancer Center, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, No. 55, Sec. 4, South Renmin Road, Chengdu, 610042, China.
Yi ZhuDepartment of Ultrasound, Sichuan Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Sichuan Cancer Hospital & Institute, Sichuan Cancer Center, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, No. 55, Sec. 4, South Renmin Road, Chengdu, 610042, China.
Keju DaiDepartment of Ultrasound, Sichuan Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Sichuan Cancer Hospital & Institute, Sichuan Cancer Center, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, No. 55, Sec. 4, South Renmin Road, Chengdu, 610042, China.
Bo TanDepartment of Ultrasound, Sichuan Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Sichuan Cancer Hospital & Institute, Sichuan Cancer Center, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, No. 55, Sec. 4, South Renmin Road, Chengdu, 610042, China.
Hao DongDepartment of Pathology, Sichuan Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Sichuan Cancer Hospital & Institute, Sichuan Cancer Center, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu, China.
Jing LinDepartment of Ultrasound, Sichuan Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Sichuan Cancer Hospital & Institute, Sichuan Cancer Center, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, No. 55, Sec. 4, South Renmin Road, Chengdu, 610042, China.
Rong HeDepartment of Ultrasound, Sichuan Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Sichuan Cancer Hospital & Institute, Sichuan Cancer Center, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, No. 55, Sec. 4, South Renmin Road, Chengdu, 610042, China.
Man LuDepartment of Ultrasound, Sichuan Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Sichuan Cancer Hospital & Institute, Sichuan Cancer Center, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, No. 55, Sec. 4, South Renmin Road, Chengdu, 610042, China. graceof@163.com.
Yuan LiDepartment of Ultrasound, Sichuan Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Sichuan Cancer Hospital & Institute, Sichuan Cancer Center, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, No. 55, Sec. 4, South Renmin Road, Chengdu, 610042, China. 283072380@qq.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo establish a diagnostic model combining contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS), human epididymis protein 4 (HE4), and Ovarian-Adnexal Reporting and Data Systems (O-RADS) US v2022, verify its diagnostic efficacy, and compare it with subjective evaluation.

methodsFrom January 2018 to August 2021 (the test group) and from September 2021 to September 2022 (the validation group), the data of patients classified as O-RADS US v2022 categories 2 to 5 who underwent adnexal ultrasound examinations were prospectively and continuously collected. In the test group, univariate and multivariate analyses were used to explore the relationship between age, body mass index (BMI), maximum diameter of the lesion, menopausal status, HE4, cancer antigen 125 (CA125), and the characteristics of CEUS and malignant lesions. Selecting independent influencing factors to construct diagnostic model, which was validated in the external validation group and compared with subjective evaluation.

resultsThe test group included 563 patients (mean age, 48.7 ± 13.2), and the validation group included 246 patients (mean age, 47.6 ± 12.9). Univariate and multivariate analyses showed that enhancement time, enhancement intensity, dynamic changes, and HE4 were independent influencing factors for predicting adnexal malignant tumors. In the validation group, the sensitivities and specificities of O-RADS US v2022, O-RADS US v2022 + CEUS, O-RADS US v2022 + CEUS + HE4, and subjective assessment were 88.89% and 70.69%, 94.44% and 79.31%, 91.67% and 92.53%, and 93.09% and 89.66% respectively. In addition, the combined diagnostic performance of O-RADS US v2022, CEUS and HE4 (AUC = 0.980) was higher than that of O-RADS US v2022 alone (AUC = 0.876, P < 0.001) and the combination of O-RADS US v2022 + CEUS (AUC = 0.908, P < 0.001), and was comparable to the subjective evaluation (AUC = 0.963, P = 0.192).

conclusionsThe combined diagnostic model of O-RADS US v2022, CEUS and HE4 can improve the specificity of adnexal ultrasound diagnosis without sacrificing sensitivity, and it has high reliability.

Indexed as

Adnexal DiseasesOvarian NeoplasmsWAP Four-Disulfide Core Domain Protein 2AdultAgedContrast MediaFemaleHumansMiddle AgedUltrasonographyContrast MediaWAP Four-Disulfide Core Domain Protein 2WFDC2 protein, humanCEUSHE4O-RADS US v2022Ovarian tumor

Identifiers

PMID40481532
PMCPMC12143051

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.