Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2022 Feb 5;14(3):810.
doi: 10.3390/cancers14030810.

Diagnostic Performance of Risk of Malignancy Algorithm (ROMA), Risk of Malignancy Index (RMI) and Expert Ultrasound Assessment in a Pelvic Mass Classified as Inconclusive by International Ovarian Tumour Analysis (IOTA) Simple Rules

Siew Fei Ngu  1 , Yu Ka Chai  2 , Ka Man Choi  3 , Tsin Wah Leung  4 , Justin Li  5 , Gladys S T Kwok  1 , Mandy M Y Chu  1 , Ka Yu Tse  1 , Vincent Y T Cheung  1 , Hextan Y S Ngan  1 , Karen K L Chan  1
Affiliations

Diagnostic Performance of Risk of Malignancy Algorithm (ROMA), Risk of Malignancy Index (RMI) and Expert Ultrasound Assessment in a Pelvic Mass Classified as Inconclusive by International Ovarian Tumour Analysis (IOTA) Simple Rules

Siew Fei Ngu et al. Cancers (Basel). .

Abstract

The accurate prediction of malignancy for a pelvic mass detected on ultrasound allows for appropriate referral to specialised care. IOTA simple rules are one of the best methods but are inconclusive in 25% of cases, where subjective assessment by an expert sonographer is recommended but may not always be available. In the present paper, we evaluate the methods for assessing the nature of a pelvic mass, including IOTA with subjective assessment by expert ultrasound, RMI and ROMA. In particular, we investigate whether ROMA can replace expert ultrasound when IOTA is inconclusive. This prospective study involves one cancer centre and three general units. Women scheduled for an operation for a pelvic mass underwent a pelvic ultrasound pre-operatively. The final histology was obtained from the operative sample. The sensitivity, specificity and accuracy for each method were compared with the McNemar test. Of the 690 women included in the study, 171 (25%) had an inconclusive IOTA. In this group, expert ultrasound was more sensitive in diagnosing a malignant mass compared to ROMA (81% vs. 63%, p = 0.009) with no significant difference in the specificity or accuracy. All assessment methods involving IOTA had similar accuracies and were more accurate than RMI or ROMA alone. In conclusion, when IOTA was inconclusive, assessment by expert ultrasound was more sensitive than ROMA, with similar specificity.

Keywords: CA125; HE4; biomarkers; international ovarian tumour analysis simple rules (IOTA); ovarian cancer; pelvic mass; risk of malignancy algorithm (ROMA); risk of malignancy index (RMI).

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
The flow of participants.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Engelen M.J., Kos H.E., Willemse P.H., Aalders J.G., de Vries E.G., Schaapveld M., Otter R., van der Zee A.G. Surgery by consultant gynecologic oncologists improves survival in patients with ovarian carcinoma. Cancer. 2006;106:589–598. doi: 10.1002/cncr.21616. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Woo Y.L., Kyrgiou M., Bryant A., Everett T., Dickinson H.O. Centralisation of services for gynaecological cancers—A Cochrane systematic review. Gynecol. Oncol. 2012;126:286–290. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2012.04.012. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Meys E.M., Kaijser J., Kruitwagen R.F., Slangen B.F., Van Calster B., Aertgeerts B., Verbakel J.Y., Timmerman D., Van Gorp T. Subjective assessment versus ultrasound models to diagnose ovarian cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur. J. Cancer. 2016;58:17–29. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2016.01.007. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Van Calster B., Valentin L., Froyman W., Landolfo C., Ceusters J., Testa A.C., Wynants L., Sladkevicius P., Van Holsbeke C., Domali E., et al. Validation of models to diagnose ovarian cancer in patients managed surgically or conservatively: Multicentre cohort study. BMJ. 2020;370:m2614. doi: 10.1136/bmj.m2614. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Westwood M., Ramaekers B., Lang S., Grimm S., Deshpande S., de Kock S., Armstrong N., Joore M., Kleijnen J. Risk scores to guide referral decisions for people with suspected ovarian cancer in secondary care: A systematic review and cost-effectiveness analysis. Health Technol. Assess. 2018;22:1–264. doi: 10.3310/hta22440. - DOI - PMC - PubMed