Diagnostic Performance of ADNEX Model and IOTA Simple Rules in Differentiating Malignant from Benign Adnexal Masses When Assessed by Non-Expert Examiners

<b>Objective</b>: The aim of the study was evaluate the diagnostic performance of the ADNEX model performed by non-expert examiners in differentiating between benign and malignant adnexal masses and to compare its performance with the IOTA Simple Rules. <b>Methods</b>: This diagnostic study was a secondary analysis based on a prospectively collected database of gynecological patients scheduled for elective surgery for adnexal masses. Preoperative ultrasound was performed within 24 h before surgery by second- and third-year gynecology residents who had completed a 20 h training course on adnexal mass ultrasound. Ultrasound data, CA-125 levels, and demographic information were reviewed and validated. Malignancy risk assessment using the IOTA Simple Rules was based on M-rules and B-rules, while risk calculations with the ADNEX model were conducted using an online application. <b>Results</b>: The area under the curve (AUC) for the ADNEX model was 0.958 (95% CI: 0.936-0.980), which was significantly higher than that of the IOTA Simple Rules at 0.886 (95% CI: 0.840-0.931; <i>p</i> < 0.001). Using a 10% cutoff, the ADNEX model demonstrated a sensitivity of 93.9% and a specificity of 81.0%, while the IOTA Simple Rules had a sensitivity of 84.0% and a specificity of 93.1%. The AUCs of the ADNEX model did not significantly differ when center status was considered (oncologic vs. non-oncologic centers). <b>Conclusions</b>: The ADNEX model, using a 10% cutoff, exhibited superior efficacy in differentiating benign from malignant adnexal masses compared with the IOTA Simple Rules. Furthermore, the sensitivity and specificity of the ADNEX model did not significantly differ between oncologic and non-oncologic centers. Both methods demonstrated high diagnostic accuracy, even when performed by non-expert examiners, suggesting that their diagnostic performance is reproducible and applicable in general clinical practice by general practitioners and gynecologists.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Clinical Medicine
Published
2025-04-17
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm14082776
Citations
5
Primary Topic
Ovarian cancer diagnosis and treatment
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
8.49
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Diagnostic Performance of ADNEX Model and IOTA Simple Rules in Differentiating Malignant from Benign Adnexal Masses When Assessed by Non-Expert Examiners

Theera Tongsong, Worashorn Lattiwongsakorn, Charuwan Tantipalakorn, Ammaraporn Chankrachang
5 citations
Journal of Clinical Medicine
Ovarian cancer diagnosis and treatment
8.49
article

Diagnostic Performance of ADNEX Model and IOTA Simple Rules in Differentiating Malignant from Benign Adnexal Masses When Assessed by Non-Expert Examiners

Theera Tongsong, Worashorn Lattiwongsakorn, Charuwan Tantipalakorn, Ammaraporn Chankrachang
article en
5 citations

Abstract

<b>Objective</b>: The aim of the study was evaluate the diagnostic performance of the ADNEX model performed by non-expert examiners in differentiating between benign and malignant adnexal masses and to compare its performance with the IOTA Simple Rules. <b>Methods</b>: This diagnostic study was a secondary analysis based on a prospectively collected database of gynecological patients scheduled for elective surgery for adnexal masses. Preoperative ultrasound was performed within 24 h before surgery by second- and third-year gynecology residents who had completed a 20 h training course on adnexal mass ultrasound. Ultrasound data, CA-125 levels, and demographic information were reviewed and validated. Malignancy risk assessment using the IOTA Simple Rules was based on M-rules and B-rules, while risk calculations with the ADNEX model were conducted using an online application. <b>Results</b>: The area under the curve (AUC) for the ADNEX model was 0.958 (95% CI: 0.936-0.980), which was significantly higher than that of the IOTA Simple Rules at 0.886 (95% CI: 0.840-0.931; <i>p</i> < 0.001). Using a 10% cutoff, the ADNEX model demonstrated a sensitivity of 93.9% and a specificity of 81.0%, while the IOTA Simple Rules had a sensitivity of 84.0% and a specificity of 93.1%. The AUCs of the ADNEX model did not significantly differ when center status was considered (oncologic vs. non-oncologic centers). <b>Conclusions</b>: The ADNEX model, using a 10% cutoff, exhibited superior efficacy in differentiating benign from malignant adnexal masses compared with the IOTA Simple Rules. Furthermore, the sensitivity and specificity of the ADNEX model did not significantly differ between oncologic and non-oncologic centers. Both methods demonstrated high diagnostic accuracy, even when performed by non-expert examiners, suggesting that their diagnostic performance is reproducible and applicable in general clinical practice by general practitioners and gynecologists.

Journal of Clinical MedicineVol. 14(8)
Chiang Mai University (TH)
Good health and well-being
Openalex Percentile: Top 3%
Ovarian cancer diagnosis and treatment
8.49
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.