ArticleQuantitative imaging in medicine and surgery2026
Diagnostic significance of cancer antigen 125/carcinoembryonic antigen ratio combined with IOTA-ADNEX model in discriminating between primary ovarian cancer and ovarian metastases.
Article in Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Background: Ovarian metastases (OMs) are relatively common and exhibit unfavorable biological characteristics. The present study sought to evaluate the diagnostic value of the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis (IOTA) Assessment of Different NEoplasias in the adneXa (ADNEX) model, the cancer antigen 125 (CA125)/carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) ratio, and their combination in distinguishing OM from primary ovarian cancer (OC). Methods: This retrospective study enrolled patients with histopathologically diagnosed OM and primary OC. OM was classified into three types based on ultrasound (US) findings. The risk of each mass was calculated using the ADNEX model. The two groups' clinical data, US characteristics, and ADNEX model risk were recorded and compared. The area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC) was employed to evaluate the diagnostic performance. Results: OM originated most frequently from the intestinal tract (58.3%). In total, 52.8% (38/72) of OM cases were identified simultaneously with primary tumors, whereas 47.2% (34/72) were diagnosed after the primary tumor. About 22.2% (16/72) of OM cases were type A, 37.5% (27/72) were type B, and 40.3% (29/72) were type C. The ADNEX model, CA125/CEA ratio, and the combined CA125/CEA ratio of ADNEX were compared between the two groups. The diagnostic performance of the ADNEX combined CA125/CEA ratio was significantly superior to that of the model alone {AUC = 0.886 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.836-0.936], sensitivity =0.736 (95% CI: 0.619-0.833), accuracy =0.843 (95% CI: 0.788-0.895)}. Conclusions: Both ADNEX and the CA125/CEA ratio alone can effectively distinguish OM from primary OC. Adding the CA125/CEA ratio to the IOTA-ADNEX model may improve its performance in differentiating between OM and primary OC.
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.