» Articles » PMID: 37940895

Comparative Diagnostic Accuracy of the IOTA SRR and LR2 Scoring Systems for Discriminating Between Malignant and Benign Adnexal Masses by Junior Physicians in Chinese Patients: a Retrospective Observational Study

Overview
Publisher Biomed Central
Date 2023 Nov 8
PMID 37940895
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: The accuracy of ultrasound in distinguishing benign from malignant adnexal masses is highly correlated with the experience of ultrasound physicians. In China, most of ultrasound differentiation is done by junior physicians.

Purpose: To compare the diagnostic performance of the International Ovarian Tumour Analysis (IOTA) Simple Rules Risk (SRR) and IOTA Logistic Regression Model 2 (LR2) scoring systems in Chinese patients with adnexal masses.

Methods: Retrospective analysis of ovarian cancer tumor patients who underwent surgery at a hospital in China from January 2016 to December 2021. Screening patients with at least one adnexal mass on inclusion and exclusion criteria. Two trained junior physicians evaluated each mass using the two scoring systems. A receiver operating characteristic curve was used to test the diagnostic performance of each system.

Results: A total of 144 adnexal masses were retrospectively collected. Forty masses were histologically diagnosed as malignant. Compared with premenopausal women, postmenopausal women had a much higher rate of malignant masses. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV) of the SRR was 97.5% (95% CI: 86.8 -99.9%), 82.7% (95% CI: 74.0 -89.4%), 68.4% (95% CI: 58.7 -76.8%) and 98.9% (95% CI: 92.5 -99.8%). The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV of the LR2 were 90.0% (95% CI: 76.5 -97.2%), 89.4% (95% CI: 81.9 -94.6%), 76.6% (95% CI: 65.0 -85.2%), and 95.9% (95% CI: 90.2 -98.3%). There was good agreement between two scoring systems, with 84.03% total agreement and a kappa value of 0.783 (95% CI: 0.70-0.864). The areas under the curve for predicting malignant tumours using SRR and LR2 were similar for all patients (P > 0.05 ).

Conclusion: The two scoring systems can effectively distinguish benign from malignant adnexal masses. Both scoring systems have high diagnostic efficacy, and diagnostic efficacy is stable, which can provide an important reference for clinical decision making.

Citing Articles

Novel diagnostics for improved treatment of gynecological cancer.

Gyllensten U Ups J Med Sci. 2025; 130.

PMID: 39981201 PMC: 11836773. DOI: 10.48101/ujms.v130.12111.


Performance of International Ovarian Tumor Analysis (IOTA) predictive models in preoperative discrimination between benign and malignant adnexal lesions: preliminary outcomes in a Tertiary Care Hospital in Greece.

Kougioumtsidou A, Karavida A, Mamopoulos A, Dagklis T, Tsakiridis I, Kopatsaris S Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2024; 311(1):113-122.

PMID: 39658706 DOI: 10.1007/s00404-024-07859-7.

References
1.
Davenport C, Rai N, Sharma P, Deeks J, Berhane S, Mallett S . Menopausal status, ultrasound and biomarker tests in combination for the diagnosis of ovarian cancer in symptomatic women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022; 7:CD011964. PMC: 9314189. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011964.pub2. View

2.
Hiett A, Sonek J, Guy M, Reid T . Performance of IOTA Simple Rules, Simple Rules risk assessment, ADNEX model and O-RADS in differentiating between benign and malignant adnexal lesions in North American women. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2021; 59(5):668-676. DOI: 10.1002/uog.24777. View

3.
Nebgen D, Lu K, Bast Jr R . Novel Approaches to Ovarian Cancer Screening. Curr Oncol Rep. 2019; 21(8):75. PMC: 6662655. DOI: 10.1007/s11912-019-0816-0. View

4.
Ben-Arye E, Lavie O, Heyl W, Ramondetta L, Berman T, Samuels N . Integrative Medicine for Ovarian Cancer. Curr Oncol Rep. 2023; 25(6):559-568. DOI: 10.1007/s11912-023-01359-8. View

5.
Zhao B, Fu Y, Wen L, Wang Z, Fu C, Liu M . Comparison of diagnostic efficiency between IOTA LR2 model and doctors experiences. Zhong Nan Da Xue Xue Bao Yi Xue Ban. 2022; 47(8):1082-1088. PMC: 10950117. DOI: 10.11817/j.issn.1672-7347.2022.220051. View