Presurgical diagnosis of adnexal tumours using mathematical models and scoring systems: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Human Reproduction Update

Volumn 20, Issue 3, 2014, Pages 449-462

  Kaijser, Jeroen ^a,b   Sayasneh, Ahmad ^c   Van hoorde, Kirsten ^a   Ghaem maghami, Sadaf ^c   Bourne, Tom ^a,b,c   Timmerman, Dirk ^a,b   Van Calster, Ben ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LEUVEN   (Belgium)

^b UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS LEUVEN   (Belgium)

^c QUEEN CHARLOTTE S AND CHELSEA HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Biomarkers; Meta analysis; Ovarian neoplasm; Systematic review; Ultrasonography

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CANCER DIAGNOSIS; CLINICAL ASSESSMENT TOOL; COHORT ANALYSIS; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC TEST ACCURACY STUDY; HUMAN; LOGISTIC REGRESSION ANALYSIS; MATHEMATICAL MODEL; META ANALYSIS; OVARY CANCER; POSTMENOPAUSE; PREOPERATIVE EVALUATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; RISK FACTOR; SCORING SYSTEM; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW;

BIOMARKERS; META-ANALYSIS; OVARIAN NEOPLASM; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; ULTRASONOGRAPHY;

ADNEXAL DISEASES; DIAGNOSIS, DIFFERENTIAL; EARLY DIAGNOSIS; FEMALE; HUMANS; MODELS, STATISTICAL; OVARIAN NEOPLASMS; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; RISK ASSESSMENT; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; UNNECESSARY PROCEDURES;

EID: 84898614348     PISSN: 13554786     EISSN: 14602369     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/humupd/dmt059     Document Type: Article

References (148)

1. Aktürk E, Karaca RE, Alanbay I, Dede M, Karaşahin E, Yenen MC, Başer I. Comparison of four malignancy risk indices in the detection of malignant ovarian masses. J Gynecol Oncol 2011;22:177-182.
2. Alcazar JL, Lopez-Garcia G. Transvaginal color Doppler assessment of venous flow in adnexal masses. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2001;17:434-438.
3. Alcazar JL, Errasti T, Laparte C, Jurado M, Lopez-Garcia A. Assessment of a newlogistic model in the preoperative evaluation of adnexal masses. J Ultrasound Med 2001; 20:841-848.
4. Alcazar JL, Merce LT, Laparte C, Jurado M, Lopez-Garcia A. New scoring system to differentiate benign from malignant adnexal masses. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2003; 188:685-692.
5. Alcázar JL, Castillo G, Jurado M, García GL. Is expectant management of sonographically benign adnexal cysts an option in selected asymptomatic premenopausal women? Hum Reprod 2005;20:3231-3234.
6. Alcázar JL, Pascual MA, Olartecoechea B, Graupera B, Aubá M, Ajossa S, Hereter L, Julve R, Gastón B, Peddes C et al. IOTA simple rules for discriminating between benign and malignant adnexal masses: prospective external validation. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2013 Apr 10. doi:10.1002/uog.12485
7. Andersen ES, Knudsen A, Rix P, Johansen B. Risk of malignancy index in the preoperative evaluation of patients with adnexal masses. Gynecol Oncol 2003; 90:109-112.
8. Anton C, Carvalho FM, Oliveira EI, Maciel GA, Baracat EC, Carvalho JP. Acomparison of CA125, HE4, risk ovarian malignancy algorithm (ROMA), and risk malignancy index (RMI) for the classification of ovarian masses. Clinics (Sao Paulo) 2012;67:437-441.
9. Ashrafgangooei T, Rezaeezadeh M. Risk of malignancy index in preoperative evaluation of pelvic masses. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 2011;12:1727-1730.
10. Asif N, Sattar A, Dawood MM, RafiT, Aamir M, Anwar M. Pre-operative evaluation of ovarian mass: risk of malignancy index. J Coll Physicians Surg Pak 2004;14:128-131.
11. Aslam N, Banerjee S, Carr JV, Savvas M, Hooper R, Jurkovic D. Prospective evaluation of logistic regression models for the diagnosis of ovarian cancer. Obstet Gynecol 2000a;96:75-80.
12. Aslam N, Tailor A, Lawton F, Carr J, Savvas M, Jurkovic D. Prospective evaluation of three different models for the pre-operative diagnosis of ovarian cancer. BJOG 2000b;107:1347-1353.
13. Bandiera E, Romani C, Specchia C, Zanotti L, Galli C, Ruggeri G, Tognon G, Bignotti E, Tassi RA, Odicino F et al. Serum human epididymis protein 4 and risk for ovarian malignancy algorithm as new diagnostic and prognostic tools for epithelial ovarian cancer management. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2011;20:2496-2506.
14. Bast RC Jr, Skates S, Lokshin A, Moore RG. Differential diagnosis of a pelvic mass: improved algorithms and novel biomarkers. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2012;22:S5-S8.
15. Berlanda N, Ferrari MM, Mezzopane R, Boero V, Grijuela B, Ferrazzi E, Pardi G. Impact of a multi-parameter, ultrasound based triage on surgical management of adnexal masses. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2002;20:181-185.
16. Botta G, Zarcone R. Transvaginal ultrasound examination of ovarian masses in premenopausal women. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 1995;62:37-41.
17. Bouzari Z, Yazdani S, Ahmadi MH, Barat S, Kelagar ZS, Kutenaie MJ, Abbaszade N, Khajat F. Comparison of three malignancy risk indices and CA-125 in the preoperative evaluation of patients with pelvic masses. BMC Res Notes 2011;4:206.
18. Bristow RE, Berek JS. Surgery for ovarian cancer: how to improve survival. Lancet 2006; 367:1558-1560.
19. Bristow R, Zahurak M, del Carmen M, Gordon TA, Fox HE, Trimble EL, Montz FJ. Ovarian cancer surgery in Maryland: volume-based access to care. Gynecol Oncol 2004;93:353-360.
20. Bristow RE, Smith A, Zhang Z, Chan DW, Crutcher G, Fung ET, Munroe DG. Ovarian malignancy risk stratification of the adnexal mass using a multivariate index assay. Gynecol Oncol 2013;128:252-259.
21. Buckshee K, Temsu I, Bhatla N, Deka D. Pelvic examination, transvaginal ultrasound and transvaginal color Doppler sonography as predictors of ovarian cancer. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 1998;61:51-57.
22. Carley ME, Klingele CJ, Gebhart JB, Webb MJ, Wilson TO. Laparoscopy versus laparotomy in the management of benign unilateral adnexal masses. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc 2002;9:321-326.
23. Caruso A, Caforio L, Testa AC, Ciampelli M, Panici PB, Mancuso S. Transvaginal color Doppler ultrasonography in the presurgical characterization of adnexal masses. Gynecol Oncol 1996;63:184-191.
24. Chan KK, Chen CA, Nam JH, Ochiai K, Wilailak S, Choon AT, Sabaratnam S, Hebbar S, Sickan J, Schodin BA et al. The use of HE4 in the prediction of ovarian cancer in Asian women with a pelvic mass. Gynecol Oncol 2013;128:239-244.
25. Chang X, Ye X, Dong L, Cheng H, Cheng Y, Zhu L, Liao Q, Zhao Y, Tian L, Fu T et al. Human epididymis protein 4 (HE4) as a serum tumor biomarker in patients with ovarian carcinoma. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2011;21:852-858.
26. Chia YN, Marsden DE, Robertson G, Hacker NF. Triage of ovarian masses. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 2008;48:322-328.
27. Clarke SE, Grimshaw R, Rittenberg P, Kieser K, Bentley J. Risk of malignancy index in the evaluation of patients with adnexal masses. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2009;31:440-445.
28. Clayton RD, Snowden S, Weston MJ, Mogensen O, Eastaugh J, Lane G. Neural networks in the diagnosis of malignant ovarian tumours. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1999; 106:1078-1082.
29. Curtin JP. Management of the adnexal mass. Gynecol Oncol 1994;55:S42-S46.
30. Daponte A, Stergioti E, Messinis IE. Risk scoring for adnexal masses and endoscopic management. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2007;96:42-43.
31. DaraïE, Fauvet R, Uzan C, Gouy S, Duvillard P, Morice P. Fertility and borderline ovarian tumor: a systematic review of conservative management, risk of recurrence and alternative options. Hum Reprod Update 2013;19:151-166.
32. Davies AP, Jacobs I, Woolas R, Fish A, Oram D. The adnexal mass: benign or malignant? Evaluation of a risk of malignancy index. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1993;100:927-931.
33. Dearking A, Aletti G, McGree M, Weaver AL, Sommerfield MK, Cliby WA. How relevant are ACOG and SGO guidelines for referral of adnexal mass? Obstet Gynecol 2007;110:841-848.
34. Deeks J. Systematic reviews in health care: systematic reviews of diagnostic and screening tests. BMJ 2001;323:157-162.
35. DePriest PD, Shenson D, Fried A, Hunter JE, Andrews SJ, Gallion HH, Pavlik EJ, Kryscio RJ, van Nagell JR Jr. A morphology index based on sonographic findings in ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol 1993;51:7-11.
36. DePriest PD, Varner E, Powell J, Fried A, Puls L, Higgins R, Shenson D, Kryscio R, Hunter JE, Andrews SJ et al. The efficacy of a sonographic morphology index in identifying ovarian cancer: a multi-institutional investigation. Gynecol Oncol 1994; 55:174-178.
37. Desai D, Desai VA, Verma RN, Shrivastava A. Role of gray scale and color Doppler in differentiating benign from malignant ovarian masses. J Midlife Health 2010;1: 23-25.
38. Dodge JE, Covens AL, Lacchetti C, Elit LM, Le T, Devries-Aboud M, Fung-Kee-Fung M; The Gynecology Cancer Disease Site Group. Preoperative identification of a suspicious adnexal mass: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Gynecol Oncol 2012;126:157-166.
39. Durdevic S. Diagnostic importance of the sonographic scoring system in differentiating between malignant and benign ovarian tumors. Med Pregl 2001;54: 161-165.
40. Enakpene CA, Omigbodun AO, Goecke TW, Odukogbe AT, Beckmann MW. Preoperative evaluation and triage of women with suspicious adnexal masses using risk of malignancy index. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 2009;35:131-138.
41. Engelen MJ, de Bruijn HW, Hollema H, ten Hoor KA, Willemse PH, Aalders JG, Van der Zee AG. Serum CA125, carcinoembryonic antigen, and CA19-9 as tumor markers in borderline ovarian tumors. Gynecol Oncol 2000;78:16-20.
42. Fanfani F, Fagotti A, Ercoli A, Bifulco G, Longo R, Mancuso S, Scambia G. A prospective randomized study of laparoscopy and minilaparotomy in the management of benign adnexal masses. Hum Reprod 2004;19:2367-2371.
43. Fathallah K, Huchon C, Bats AS, Metzger U, Lefrère-Belda MA, Bensaid C, Lécuru F. External validation of simple ultrasound rules of Timmerman on 122 ovarian tumors. Gynecol Obstet Fertil 2011;39:477-481.
44. Ferraro S, Braga F, Lanzoni M, Boracchi P, Biganzoli EM, Panteghini M. Serum human epididymis protein 4 vs carbohydrate antigen 125 for ovarian cancer diagnosis: a systematic review. J Clin Pathol 2013;66:273-281.
45. Ferrazzi E, Zanetta G, Dordoni D, Berlanda N, Mezzopane R, Lissoni AA. Transvaginal ultrasonographic characterization of ovarian masses: comparison of five scoring systems in a multicenter study. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1997;10:192-197.
46. Ferrazzi E, Lissoni AA, Dordoni D, Trio D, Redaelli L, Rusconi C, Sanpaolo P, Floriani I, Torri V, Zaglio S et al. Differentiation of small adnexal masses based on morphologic characteristics of transvaginal sonographic imaging: a multicenter study. J Ultrasound Med 2005;24:1467-1473.
47. Geomini P, Kruitwagen R, Bremer GL, Cnossen J, Mol BWJ. The accuracy of risk scores in predicting ovarian malignancy. A systematic review. Obstet Gynecol 2009;113: 384-394.
48. Gotlieb WH, Soriano D, Achiron R, Zalel Y, Davidson B, Kopolovic J, Novikov I, Ben-Baruch G. CA 125 measurement and ultrasonography in borderline tumors of the ovary. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2000;83:541-546.
49. Gramellini D, Rutolo S, Verrotti C, Piantelli G, Fieni S, Vadora E. Sonographic characterization, Doppler ultrasonography and tumor markers in the diagnosis of malignancy of ovarian masses. Minerva Ginecol 2001;53:1-11.
50. Hagen B, Tingulstad S, Onsrud M, Moen M, Kiserud T, Eik-Nes S, Halvorsen T, Nustad K. Preoperative identification of malignancy among women with a pelvic mass. Evaluation of a risk index based on ultrasound findings. CA 125 in serum and menopausal status. Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen 1995;115:820-822.
51. Håkansson F, Høgdall EV, Nedergaard L, Lundvall L, Engelholm SA, Pedersen AT, Hartwell D, Høgdall C; THE DANISH 'PELVIC MASS' OVARIAN CANCER STUDY. Risk of malignancy index used as a diagnostic tool in a tertiary centre for patients with a pelvic mass. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2012;91:496-502.
52. Harry VN, Narayansingh GV, Parkin DE. The risk of malignancy index forovarian tumours in Northeast Scotland-a population based study. Scott Med J 2009;54:21-23.
53. Hartman CA, Juliato CR, Sarian LO, Toledo MC, Jales RM, Morais SS, Pitta DD, Marussi EF, Derchain S. Ultrasound criteria and CA 125 as predictive variables of ovarian cancer in women with adnexal tumors. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2012;40:360-366.
54. Irwig L, Tosteson AN, Gatsonis C, Lau J, Colditz G, Chalmers TC, Mosteller F. Guidelines for meta-analyses evaluating diagnostic tests. Ann Intern Med 1994; 120:667-676.
55. Itakura T, Kikkawa F, Kajiyama H, Mitsui T, Kawai M, Mizutani S. Doppler flow and arterial location in ovarian tumors. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2003;83:277-283.
56. Jacob F, Meier M, CaduffR, Goldstein D, Pochechueva T, Hacker N, Fink D, Heinzelmann-Schwarz V. No benefit from combining HE4 and CA125 as ovarian tumor markers in a clinical setting. Gynecol Oncol 2011;121:487-491.
57. Jacobs I, Oram D, Fairbanks J, Turner J, Frost C, Grudzinskas JG. A risk of malignancy index incorporating CA 125, ultrasound and menopausal status for the accurate preoperative diagnosis of ovarian cancer. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1990;97:922-929.
58. Jokubkiene L, Sladkevicius P, Valentin L. Does three-dimensional power Doppler ultrasound help in discrimination between benign and malignant ovarian masses? Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2007;29:215-225.
59. Kader Ali Mohan GR, Jaaback K, Proietto A, Robertson R, Angstetra D. Risk of Malignancy Index (RMI) in patients with abnormal pelvic mass: comparing RMI 1, 2 and 3 in an Australian population. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 2010;50:77-80.
60. Kadija S, Stefanovic A, Jeremic K, Radojevic MM, Nikolic L, Markovic I, Atanackovic J. The utility of human epididymal protein 4, cancer antigen 125, and risk for malignancy algorithm in ovarian cancer and endometriosis. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2012;22:238-244.
61. Kaijser J, Bourne T, Valentin L, Sayasneh A, Van Holsbeke C, Vergote I, Testa AC, Franchi D, Van Calster B, Timmerman D. Improving strategies for diagnosing ovarian cancer: a summary of the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis (IOTA) studies. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2013a;41:9-20.
62. Kaijser J, Van Gorp T, Sayasneh A, Vergote I, Bourne T, Van Calster B, Timmerman D. Differentiating stage I epithelial ovarian cancer from benign disease in women with adnexal tumors using biomarkers or the ROMA algorithm. Gynecol Oncol 2013b; 130:398-399.
63. Kaijser J, VanGorp T, VanHoorde K, Van Holsbeke C, Sayasneh A, Vergote I, Bourne T, Timmerman D, Van Calster B. A comparison between an ultrasound based prediction model (LR2) and the risk of ovarian malignancy algorithm (ROMA) to assess the risk of malignancy in women with an adnexal mass. Gynecol Oncol 2013c;129:377-383.
64. Kalghatgi-Kulkarni K, Kushtagi P. Ovarian crescent sign and sonomorphological indices in preoperative determination of malignancy in adnexalmasses. Indian J Med Sci 2008; 62:477-483.
65. Karlsen MA, Sandhu N, Høgdall C, Christensen IJ, Nedergaard L, Lundvall L, Engelholm SA, Pedersen AT, Hartwell D, Lydolph M et al. Evaluation of HE4, CA125, risk of ovarian malignancy algorithm (ROMA) and risk of malignancy index (RMI) as diagnostic tools of epithelial ovarian cancer in patients with a pelvic mass. Gynecol Oncol 2012;127:379-383.
66. Kim YM, Whang DH, Park J, Kim SH, Lee SW, Park HA, Ha M, Choi KH. Evaluation of the accuracy of serum human epididymis protein 4 in combination with CA125 for detecting ovarian cancer: a prospective case-control study in a Korean population. Clin Chem Lab Med 2011;49:527-534.
67. Leeners B, Schild RL, Funk A, Hauptmann S, Kemp B, Schröder W, Rath W. Colour Doppler sonography improves the pre-operative diagnosis of ovarian tumours made using conventional transvaginal sonography. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 1996;64:79-85.
68. Lenhard M, Stieber P, Hertlein L, Kirschenhofer A, Fürst S, Mayr D, Nagel D, Hofmann K, Krocker K, Burges A. The diagnostic accuracy of two human epididymis protein 4 (HE4) testing systems in combination with CA125 in the differential diagnosis of ovarian masses. Clin Chem Lab Med 2011;49:2081-2088.
69. Lerner JP, Timor-Tritsch IE, Federman A, Abramovich G. Transvaginal ultrasonographic characterization of ovarian masses with an improved, weighted scoring system. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1994;170:81-85.
70. Li F, Tie R, Chang K, Wang F, Deng S, Lu W, Yu L, Chen M. Does risk for ovarian malignancy algorithm excel human epididymis protein 4 and CA125 in predicting epithelial ovarian cancer: a meta-analysis. BMC Cancer 2012;12:258.
71. Lijmer JG, Mol BW, Heisterkamp S, Bonsel GJ, Prins MH, van der Meulen JH, Bossuyt PM. Empirical evidence of design-related bias in studies of diagnostic tests. JAMA 1999;11:1061-1066.
72. Lou HY, Meng H, Zhu QL, Zhang Q, Jiang YX. Application values of four risk of malignancy indices in the preoperative evaluation of patients with adnexal masses. Zhongguo Yi Xue Ke Xue Yuan Xue Bao 2010;32:297-302.
73. Ma S, Shen K, Lang J. A risk of malignancy index in preoperative diagnosis of ovarian cancer. Chin Med J 2003;116:396-399.
74. Macaskill P, Gatsonis C, Deeks JJ, Harbord RM, Takwoingi Y. Chapter 10: Analysing and Presenting Results. In: Deeks JJ, Bossuyt PM, Gatsonis C (eds). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Version 1.0. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2010. Available from: http://srdta.cochrane.org/.
75. Manjunath AP, Pratapkumar, Sujatha K, Vani R. Comparison of three risk of malignancy indices in evaluation of pelvic masses. Gynecol Oncol 2001;81:225-229.
76. Mansour GM, El-Lamie IK, El-Sayed HM, Ibrahim AM, Laban M, Abou-Louz SK, Abd Allah MY, El-Mahallawi MN, El-Lamie KI, Gad-Allah M. Adnexal mass vascularity assessed by 3-dimensional power Doppler: does it add to the risk of malignancy index in prediction of ovarian malignancy?: four hundred-case study. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2009;19:867-872.
77. Moher D, Liberati A, TetzlaffJ, Altman DG; PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ 2009; 339:b2535.
78. Mol BW, Boll D, De Kanter M, Heintz AP, Sijmons EA, Oei SG, Bal H, Brölmann HA. Distinguishing the benign and malignant adnexal mass: an external validation of prognostic models. Gynecol Oncol 2001;80:162-167.
79. Molina R, Escudero JM, Augé JM, Filella X, Foj L, Torné A, Lejarcegui J, Pahisa J. HE4 a novel tumour marker for ovarian cancer: comparison with CA 125 and ROMA algorithm in patients with gynaecological diseases. Tumour Biol 2011;32: 1087-1095.
80. Montagnana M, Danese E, Ruzzenente O, Bresciani V, Nuzzo T, Gelati M, Salvagno GL, Franchi M, Lippi G, Guidi GC. The ROMA(Risk of Ovarian Malignancy Algorithm) for estimating the risk of epithelial ovarian cancer in women presenting with pelvic mass: is it really useful? Clin Chem Lab Med 2011;49:521-525.
81. Moolthiya W, Yuenyao P. The risk of malignancy index (RMI) in diagnosis of ovarian malignancy. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 2009;10:865-868.
82. Moore RG, Brown AK, Miller MC, Skates S, Allard WJ, Verch T, SteinhoffM, Messerlian G, DiSilvestro P, Granai CO et al. The use of multiple novel tumor biomarkers for the detection of ovarian carcinoma in patients with a pelvic mass. Gynecol Oncol 2007;108:402-408.
83. Moore RG, McMeekin DS, Brown AK, DiSilvestro P, Miller MC, Allard WJ, Gajewski W, Kurman R, Bast RC Jr, Skates SJ. A novel multiple marker bioassay utilizing HE4 and CA125 for the prediction of ovarian cancer in patients with a pelvic mass. Gynecol Oncol 2009;112:40-46.
84. Moore RG, Miller MC, Disilvestro P, Landrum LM, Gajewski W, Ball JJ, Skates SJ. Evaluation of the diagnostic accuracy of the risk of ovarian malignancy algorithm in women with a pelvic mass. Obstet Gynecol 2011;118:280-288.
85. Morgante G, la Marca A, Ditto A, De Leo V. Comparison of two malignancy risk indices based on serum CA125, ultrasound score and menopausal status in the diagnosis of ovarian masses. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1999;106:524-527.
86. Morice P, Camatte S, Wicart-Poque F, Atallah D, Rouzier R, Pautier P, Pomel C, Lhommé C, Duvillard P, Castaigne D. Results of conservative management of epithelial malignant and borderline ovarian tumours. Hum Reprod Update 2003; 9:185-192.
87. NICE Clinical Guidelines. CG122. Ovarian cancer: the recognition and initial management of ovarian cancer. Issued: April 2011. Available at: http://publications.nice.org.uk.
88. Nunes N, Yazbek J, Ambler G, Hoo W, Naftalin J, Jurkovic D. A prospective evaluation of the IOTA Logistic Regression Model (LR2) for the diagnosis of ovarian cancer. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2012;40:355-359.
89. Obeidat BR, Amarin ZO, Latimer JA, Crawford RA. Risk of malignancy index in the preoperative evaluation of pelvic masses. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2004;85: 255-258.
90. Ong C, Biswas A, Choolani M, Low JJ. Comparison of risk of malignancy indices in evaluating ovarian masses in a Southeast Asian population. Singapore Med J 2013; 54:136-139.
91. Partheen K, Kristjansdottir B, Sundfeldt K. Evaluation of ovarian cancer biomarkers HE4 and CA-125 in women presenting with a suspicious cystic ovarian mass. J Gynecol Oncol 2011;22:244-252.
92. Pitta DD, Sarian LO, Barreta A, Campos EA, Andrade LL, Fachini AM, Campbell LM, Derchain S. Symptoms, CA125 and HE4 for the preoperative prediction of ovarian malignancy in Brazilian women with ovarian masses. BMC Cancer 2013; 13:423.
93. Predanic M, Vlahos N, Pennisi JA, Moukhtar M, Aleem FA. Color and pulsed Doppler sonography, gray-scale imaging, and serum CA 125 in the assessment of adnexal disease. Obstet Gynecol 1996;88:283-288.
94. Presl J, Kučera R, Topolčan O, Novotný Z, Vrzalová J, Fuchsova R, Betincová L, Rokyta Z. HE4 a biomarker of ovarian cancer. Ceska Gynekol 2012;77:445-449.
95. Prömpeler HJ, Madjar H, Sauerbrei W, Lattermann U, Pfleiderer A. Diagnostic formula for the differentiation of adnexal tumors by transvaginal sonography. Obstet Gynecol 1997;89:428-433.
96. Radosa MP, Camara O, Vorwergk J, Diebolder H, Winzer H, Mothes A, Gajda M, Runnebaum IB. Preoperative multimodal strategies for risk assessment of adnexal masses: analysis of 1362 cases in a gynecologic cancer center. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2011;21:1056-1062.
97. RCOGguideline: ovarian cysts in postmenopausal women. October 2003. (Green top 34). Available at: http://www.rcog.org.uk. Reviewed 2010.
98. Romagnolo C, Trivella G, Bonacina M, Fornale M, Maggino T, Ferrazzi E. Preoperative diagnosis of 221 consecutive ovarian masses: scoring system and expert evaluation. Eur J Gynaecol Oncol 2006;27:487-489.
99. Rossi A, Braghin C, Soldano F, Isola M, Capodicasa V, Londero AP, Forzano L, Marchesoni D. A proposal for a new scoring system to evaluate pelvic masses: Pelvic Masses Score (PMS). Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2011;157:84-88.
100. Ruggeri G, Bandiera E, Zanotti L, Belloli S, Ravaggi A, Romani C, Bignotti E, Tassi RA, Tognon G, Galli C et al. HE4 and epithelial ovarian cancer: comparison and clinical evaluation of two immunoassays and a combination algorithm. Clin Chim Acta 2011;412:1447-1453.
101. Sandri MT, Bottari F, Franchi D, Boveri S, Candiani M, Ronzoni S, Peiretti M, Radice D, Passerini R, Sideri M. Comparison of HE4, CA125 and ROMA algorithm in women with a pelvic mass: correlation with pathological outcome. Gynecol Oncol 2013; 128:233-238.
102. Sassone AM, Timor-Tritsch IE, Artner A, WesthoffC, Warren WB. Transvaginal sonographic characterization of ovarian disease: evaluation of a new scoring system to predict ovarian malignancy. Obstet Gynecol 1991;78:70-76.
103. Sayasneh A, Kaijser J, Preisler J, Johnson S, Stalder C, Husicka R, Guha S, Naji O, Abdallah Y, Raslan F et al. A multicenter prospective external validation of the diagnostic performance of IOTA simple descriptors and rules to characterize ovarian masses. Gynecol Oncol 2013a;130:140-146.
104. Sayasneh A, Wynants L, Preisler J, Kaijser J, Johnson S, Stalder C, Husicka R, Abdallah Y, Raslan F, Drought A et al. Multicenter external validation of IOTAprediction models and RMI by operators with varied training. Br J Cancer 2013b;108:2448-2454.
105. Schneider VL, Schneider A, Reed KL, Hatch KD. Comparison of Doppler with two-dimensional sonography and CA 125 for prediction of malignancy of pelvic masses. Obstet Gynecol 1993;81:983-988.
106. Sengoku K, Satoh T, Saitoh S, Abe M, Ishikawa M. Evaluation of transvaginal color Doppler sonography, transvaginal sonography and CA 125 for prediction of ovarian malignancy. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 1994;46:39-43.
107. Sevinc A, Adli M, Kalender ME, Camci C. Benign causes of increased serum CA-125 concentration. Lancet Oncol 2007;8:1054-1055.
108. Siegel R, Ward E, Brawley O, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2011: the impact of eliminating socioeconomic and racial disparities on premature cancer deaths. CA Cancer J Clin 2011;61:212-236.
109. Smoleń A, Stachowicz N, Czekierowski A, Kotarski J. The estimation of the probability of tumor malignancy on the basis of test combination in the primary diagnosis of adnexal tumors. Ginekol Pol 2010;81:254-261.
110. Szpurek D, Moszynski R, Zietkowiak W, Spaczynski M, Sajdak S. An ultrasonographic morphological index for prediction of ovarian tumor malignancy. Eur J Gynaecol Oncol 2005;26:51-54.
111. Tailor A, Jurkovic D, Bourne TH, Collins WP, Campbell S. Sonographic prediction of malignancy in adnexal masses using multivariate logistic regression analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1997;10:41-47.
112. Tempe A, Singh S, Wadhwa L, Garg A. Conventional and color Doppler sonography in preoperative assessment of ovarian tumors. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2006;92: 64-68.
113. Terzic M, Dotlic J, Likic I, Brndusic N, Pilic I, Ladjevic N, Maricic S, Arsenovic N, Maricic Z. Risk of malignancy index validity assessment in premenopausal and postmenopausal women with adnexal tumors. Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol 2013; 52:253-257.
114. Timmerman D, Bourne TH, Tailor A, Collins WP, Verrelst H, Vandenberghe K, Vergote I. A comparison of methods for preoperative discrimination between malignant and benign adnexal masses: the development of a new logistic regression model. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1999a;181:57-65.
115. Timmerman D, Verrelst H, Bourne TH, De Moor B, Collins WP, Vergote I, Vandewalle J. Artificial neural network models for the preoperative discrimination between malignant and benign adnexal masses. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1999b; 13:17-25.
116. Timmerman D, Testa AC, Bourne T, Ferrazzi E, Ameye L, Konstantinovic ML, Van Calster B, Collins WP, Vergote I, Van Huffel S et al.; International Ovarian Tumor Analysis Group. Logistic regression model to distinguish between the benign and malignant adnexal mass before surgery: a multicenter study by the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis Group. J Clin Oncol 2005; 23:8794-8801.
117. Timmerman D, Testa AC, Bourne T, Ameye L, Jurkovic D, Van Holsbeke C, Paladini D, Van Calster B, Vergote I, Van Huffel S et al. Simple ultrasound-based rules for the diagnosis of ovarian cancer. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2008;31:681-690.
118. Timmerman D, Ameye L, Fischerova D, Epstein E, Melis GB, Guerriero S, Van Holsbeke C, Savelli L, Fruscio R, Lissoni AA et al. Simple ultrasound rules to distinguish between benign and malignant adnexal masses before surgery: prospective validation by IOTA group. BMJ 2010;341:c6839.
119. Timor-Tritsch LE, Lerner JP, Monteagudo A, Santos R. Transvaginal ultrasonographic characterization of ovarian masses by means of color flow-directed Doppler measurements and a morphologic scoring system. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1993; 168:909-913.
120. Tinelli R, Tinelli A, Tinelli FG, Cicinelli E, Malvasi A. Conservative surgery for borderline ovarian tumors: a review. Gynecol Oncol 2006;100:185-191.
121. Tingulstad S, Hagen B, Skjeldestad FE, Onsrud M, Kiserud T, Halvorsen T, Nustad K. Evaluation of a risk of malignancy index based on serum CA 125, ultrasound findings and menopausal status in the pre-operative diagnosis of pelvic masses. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1996;103:826-831.
122. Tingulstad S, Hagen B, Skjeldestad FE, Halvorsen T, Nustad K, Onsrud M. The risk-of-malignancy index to evaluate potential ovarian cancers in local hospitals. Obstet Gynecol 1999;93:448-452.
123. Topuz S, Saygili H, Akhan S, Yavuz E, Turfanda A, Berkman S. Differentiation of benign and malignant adnexal masses: value of a morphologic scoring system. Eur J Gynaecol Oncol 2005;26:209-212.
124. Torres JC, Derchain SF, Faundes A, Gontijo RC, Martinez EZ, Andrade LA. Risk-of-malignancy index in preoperative evaluation of clinically restricted ovarian cancer. Sao Paulo Med J 2002;120:72-76.
125. Ueland FR, Desimone CP, Seamon LG, Miller RA, Goodrich S, Podzielinski I, Sokoll L, Smith A, van Nagell JR Jr, Zhang Z. Effectiveness of a multivariate index assay in the preoperative assessment of ovarian tumors. Obstet Gynecol 2011;117: 1289-1297.
126. Ulusoy S, Akbayir O, Numanoglu C, Ulusoy N, Odabas E, Gulkilik A. The risk of malignancy index in discrimination of adnexal masses. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2007; 96:186-191.
127. Vaes E, Manchanda R, Nir R, Nir D, Bleiberg H, Autier P, Menon U, Robert A. Mathematical models to discriminate between benign and malignant adnexal masses: potential diagnostic improvement using ovarian HistoScanning. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2011;21:35-43.
128. Vaes E, Manchanda R, Autier P, Nir R, Nir D, Bleiberg H, Robert A, Menon U. Differential diagnosis of adnexal masses: sequential use of the risk of malignancy index and HistoScanning, a novel computer-aided diagnostic tool. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2012;39:91-98.
129. Valentin L. Prospective cross-validation of Doppler ultrasound examination and gray-scale ultrasound imaging for discrimination of benign and malignant pelvic masses. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1999;14:273-283.
130. Valentin L. Comparison of Lerner score, Doppler ultrasound examination, and their combination for discrimination between benign and malignant adnexal masses. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2000;15:143-147.
131. Valentin L, Hagen B, Tingulstad S, Eik-Nes S. Comparison of 'pattern recognition' and logistic regression models for discrimination between benign and malignant pelvic masses: a prospective cross validation. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2001;18: 357-365.
132. Van Calster B, Vickers AJ, Pencina MJ, Baker SG, Timmerman D, Steyerberg EW. Evaluation of markers and risk prediction models: overview of relationships between NRI and decision-analyticmeasures. Med Decis Making 2013;33:490-501.
133. Van den Akker PA, Aalders AL, Snijders MP, Kluivers KB, Samlal RA, Vollebergh JH, Massuger LF. Evaluation of the Risk of Malignancy Index in daily clinical management of adnexal masses. Gynecol Oncol 2010;116:384-388.
134. Van den Akker PA, Zusterzeel PL, Aalders AL, Snijders MP, Samlal RA, Vollebergh JH, Kluivers KB, Massuger LF. External validation of the adapted Risk of Malignancy Index incorporating tumor size in the preoperative evaluation of adnexal masses. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2011;159:422-425.
135. Van Gorp T, Cadron I, Despierre E, Daemen A, Leunen K, Amant F, Timmerman D, De Moor B, Vergote I. HE4and CA125as a diagnostic test in ovarian cancer: prospective validation of the Risk of Ovarian Malignancy Algorithm. Br J Cancer 2011; 104:863-870.
136. Van Gorp T, Veldman J, Van Calster B, Cadron I, Leunen K, Amant F, Timmerman D, Vergote I. Subjective assessment by ultrasound is superior to the risk of malignancy index (RMI) or the risk of ovarian malignancy algorithm (ROMA) in discriminating benign from malignant adnexal masses. Eur J Cancer 2012;48:1649-1656.
137. Van Holsbeke C, Van Calster B, Valentin L, Testa AC, Ferrazzi E, Dimou I, Lu C, Moerman P, Van Huffel S, Vergote I et al. External validation of mathematical models to distinguish between benign and malignant adnexal tumors: a multicenter study by the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis Group. Clin Cancer Res 2007;13:4440-4447.
138. Van Holsbeke C, Van Calster B, Testa AC, Domali E, Lu C, Van Huffel S, Valentin L, Timmerman D. Prospective internal validation of mathematical models to predict malignancy in adnexal masses: results from the international ovarian tumor analysis study. Clin Cancer Res 2009;15:684-691.
139. Van Holsbeke C, Van Calster B, Bourne T, Ajossa S, Testa AC, Guerriero S, Fruscio R, Lissoni AA, Czekierdowski A, Savelli L et al. External validation of diagnostic models to estimate the risk of malignancy in adnexal masses. Clin Cancer Res 2012; 18:815-825.
140. Vergote I, De Brabanter J, Fyles A, Bertelsen K, Einhorn N, Sevelda P, Gore ME, Kaern J, Verrelst H, Sjö vall K et al. Prognostic importance of degree of differentiation and cyst rupture in stage I invasive epithelial ovarian carcinoma. Lancet 2001;357:176-182.
141. Wanapirak C, Nimitwongsakul S, Tongsong T. Sonographic morphology scores (SMS) for differentiation between benign and malignant ovarian tumor. J Med Assoc Thai 2001;84:30-35.
142. Whiting P, Rutjes AW, Reitsma JB, Bossuyt PM, Kleijnen J. The development of QUADAS: a tool for the quality assessment of studies of diagnostic accuracy included in systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol 2003;3:25.
143. Woo YL, Kyrgiou M, Bryant A, Everett T, Dickinson HO. Centralisation of services for gynaecological cancers-a Cochrane systematic review. Gynecol Oncol 2012; 126:286-290.
144. WoodruffTK. The emergence of a new interdiscipline: oncofertility. In:WoodruffTK, Snyder KA (eds). Oncofertility: Fertility Preservation for Cancer Survivors, Vol. 138.
145. New York: Springer, 2007, 3-11.
146. Yamamoto Y, Yamada R, Oguri H, Maeda N, Fukaya T. Comparison of four malignancy risk indices in the preoperative evaluation of patients with pelvic masses. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2009;144:163-167.
147. Yazbek J, Aslam N, Tailor A, Hillaby K, Raju KS, Jurkovic D. A comparative study of the risk of malignancy index and the ovarian crescent sign for the diagnosis of invasive ovarian cancer. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2006;28:320-324.
148. Yazbek J, Raju SK, Ben-Nagi J, Holland TK, Hillaby K, Jurkovic D. Effect of quality of gynaecological ultrasonography on management of patients with suspected ovarian cancer: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol 2008;9:124-131.