RESUMO
Objectives: To conduct a systematic review of studies externally validating the ADNEX (Assessment of Different Neoplasias in the adnexa) model for diagnosis of ovarian cancer and to present a meta-analysis of its performance. Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis of external validation studies. Data sources: Medline, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, and Europe PMC, from 15 October 2014 to 15 May 2023. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies: All external validation studies of the performance of ADNEX, with any study design and any study population of patients with an adnexal mass. Two independent reviewers extracted the data. Disagreements were resolved by discussion. Reporting quality of the studies was scored with the TRIPOD (Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis) reporting guideline, and methodological conduct and risk of bias with PROBAST (Prediction model Risk Of Bias Assessment Tool). Random effects meta-analysis of the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), sensitivity and specificity at the 10% risk of malignancy threshold, and net benefit and relative utility at the 10% risk of malignancy threshold were performed. Results: 47 studies (17 007 tumours) were included, with a median study sample size of 261 (range 24-4905). On average, 61% of TRIPOD items were reported. Handling of missing data, justification of sample size, and model calibration were rarely described. 91% of validations were at high risk of bias, mainly because of the unexplained exclusion of incomplete cases, small sample size, or no assessment of calibration. The summary AUC to distinguish benign from malignant tumours in patients who underwent surgery was 0.93 (95% confidence interval 0.92 to 0.94, 95% prediction interval 0.85 to 0.98) for ADNEX with the serum biomarker, cancer antigen 125 (CA125), as a predictor (9202 tumours, 43 centres, 18 countries, and 21 studies) and 0.93 (95% confidence interval 0.91 to 0.94, 95% prediction interval 0.85 to 0.98) for ADNEX without CA125 (6309 tumours, 31 centres, 13 countries, and 12 studies). The estimated probability that the model has use clinically in a new centre was 95% (with CA125) and 91% (without CA125). When restricting analysis to studies with a low risk of bias, summary AUC values were 0.93 (with CA125) and 0.91 (without CA125), and estimated probabilities that the model has use clinically were 89% (with CA125) and 87% (without CA125). Conclusions: The results of the meta-analysis indicated that ADNEX performed well in distinguishing between benign and malignant tumours in populations from different countries and settings, regardless of whether the serum biomarker, CA125, was used as a predictor. A key limitation was that calibration was rarely assessed. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO CRD42022373182.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Assessing malignancy risk is important to choose appropriate management of ovarian tumors. We compared six algorithms to estimate the probabilities that an ovarian tumor is benign, borderline malignant, stage I primary invasive, stage II-IV primary invasive, or secondary metastatic. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study used 5909 patients recruited from 1999 to 2012 for model development, and 3199 patients recruited from 2012 to 2015 for model validation. Patients were recruited at oncology referral or general centers and underwent an ultrasound examination and surgery ≤ 120 days later. We developed models using standard multinomial logistic regression (MLR), Ridge MLR, random forest (RF), XGBoost, neural networks (NN), and support vector machines (SVM). We used nine clinical and ultrasound predictors but developed models with or without CA125. RESULTS: Most tumors were benign (3980 in development and 1688 in validation data), secondary metastatic tumors were least common (246 and 172). The c-statistic (AUROC) to discriminate benign from any type of malignant tumor ranged from 0.89 to 0.92 for models with CA125, from 0.89 to 0.91 for models without. The multiclass c-statistic ranged from 0.41 (SVM) to 0.55 (XGBoost) for models with CA125, and from 0.42 (SVM) to 0.51 (standard MLR) for models without. Multiclass calibration was best for RF and XGBoost. Estimated probabilities for a benign tumor in the same patient often differed by more than 0.2 (20% points) depending on the model. Net Benefit for diagnosing malignancy was similar for algorithms at the commonly used 10% risk threshold, but was slightly higher for RF at higher thresholds. Comparing models, between 3% (XGBoost vs. NN, with CA125) and 30% (NN vs. SVM, without CA125) of patients fell on opposite sides of the 10% threshold. CONCLUSION: Although several models had similarly good performance, individual probability estimates varied substantially.