Observational studyCancer causes & control : CCC2025
Clinical value of serum biomarkers, magnetic resonance imaging risk scoring, and malignancy risk indices in distinguishing benign and malignant ovarian masses: an observational study.
Observational study in Cancer causes & control : CCC, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeAccurate preoperative differentiation between benign and malignant adnexal masses is essential for guiding optimal surgical management. This study aimed to assess the diagnostic performance, calibration, and clinical utility of serum biomarkers (CA-125, CEA), the O-RADS MRI risk score, and Risk of Malignancy Indices (RMI-I-V) in both premenopausal and postmenopausal women.
methodsThis retrospective study included data from consecutive patients who underwent surgical management for ovarian masses at a rural tertiary care center in Southern India over 2 years. Preoperative ultrasonography, serum CA-125, CEA levels, and O-RADS MRI risk scores were recorded. RMI-I-V were calculated for each case. Statistical analyses included Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curves, calibration plots, and decision curve analysis to assess discrimination and clinical utility across decision thresholds (5-50%).
resultsA total of 129 women were evaluated-98 (75.9%) had benign, 5 (3.9%) borderline, and 26 (20.2%) malignant ovarian masses. At recommended cut-offs, all RMI models and serum biomarkers significantly differentiated between benign, borderline, and malignant cases. RMI-IV and RMI-V demonstrated the best sensitivity (92.31%), specificity (90.82% and 92.86%), and negative predictive values (97.80% and 97.85%), whereas CEA showed the poorest sensitivity (23.08%). Calibration was most accurate for RMI-V, with RMI-II and RMI-IV also performing well. Decision curve analysis confirmed the highest net clinical benefit for RMI-II and RMI-IV across thresholds of 5-50%.
conclusionRMI-based models, especially RMI-IV, demonstrated excellent diagnostic accuracy and clinical utility, supporting their use as a reliable, cost-effective tool for adnexal mass evaluation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41442084What 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.