Updating M6 pregnancy of unknown location risk-prediction model including evaluation of clinical factors.

OBJECTIVES: Ectopic pregnancy (EP) is a major high-risk outcome following a pregnancy of unknown location (PUL) classification. Biochemical markers are used to triage PUL as high vs low risk to guide appropriate follow-up. The M6 model is currently the best risk-prediction model. We aimed to update the M6 model and evaluate whether performance can be improved by including clinical factors. METHODS: This prospective cohort study recruited consecutive PUL between January 2015 and January 2017 at eight units (Phase 1), with two centers continuing recruitment between January 2017 and March 2021 (Phase 2). Serum samples were collected routinely and sent for ß-human chorionic gonadotropin (ß-hCG) and progesterone measurement. Clinical factors recorded were maternal age, pain score, bleeding score and history of EP. Based on transvaginal ultrasonography and/or biochemical confirmation during follow-up, PUL were classified subsequently as failed PUL (FPUL), intrauterine pregnancy (IUP) or EP (including persistent PUL (PPUL)). The M6 models with (M6P ) and without (M6NP ) progesterone were refitted and extended with clinical factors. Model validation was performed using internal-external cross-validation (IECV) (Phase 1) and temporal external validation (EV) (Phase 2). Missing values were handled using multiple imputation. RESULTS: Overall, 5473 PUL were recruited over both phases. A total of 709 PUL were excluded because maternal age was < 16 years or initial ß-hCG was ≤ 25 IU/L, leaving 4764 (87%) PUL for analysis (2894 in Phase 1 and 1870 in Phase 2). For the refitted M6P model, the area under the receiver-operating-characteristics curve (AUC) for EP/PPUL vs IUP/FPUL was 0.89 for IECV and 0.84-0.88 for EV, with respective sensitivities of 94% and 92-93%. For the refitted M6NP model, the AUCs were 0.85 for IECV and 0.82-0.86 for EV, with respective sensitivities of 92% and 93-94%. Calibration performance was good overall, but with heterogeneity between centers. Net Benefit confirmed clinical utility. The change in AUC when M6P was extended to include maternal age, bleeding score and history of EP was between -0.02 and 0.01, depending on center and phase. The corresponding change in AUC when M6NP was extended was between -0.01 and 0.03. At the 5% threshold to define high risk of EP/PPUL, extending M6P altered sensitivity by -0.02 to -0.01, specificity by 0.03 to 0.04 and Net Benefit by -0.005 to 0.006. Extending M6NP altered sensitivity by -0.03 to -0.01, specificity by 0.05 to 0.07 and Net Benefit by -0.005 to 0.006. CONCLUSIONS: The updated M6 model offers accurate diagnostic performance, with excellent sensitivity for EP. Adding clinical factors to the model improved performance in some centers, especially when progesterone levels were not suitable or unavailable. © 2023 The Authors. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

External validation of models to predict the outcome of pregnancies of unknown location: a multicentre cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: To validate externally five approaches to predict ectopic pregnancy (EP) in pregnancies of unknown location (PUL): the M6P and M6NP risk models, the two-step triage strategy (2ST, which incorporates M6P), the M4 risk model, and beta human chorionic gonadotropin ratio cut-offs (BhCG-RC). DESIGN: Secondary analysis of a prospective cohort study. SETTING: Eight UK early pregnancy assessment units. POPULATION: Women presenting with a PUL and BhCG >25 IU/l. METHODS: Women were managed using the 2ST protocol: PUL were classified as low risk of EP if presenting progesterone ≤2 nmol/l; the remaining cases returned 2 days later for triage based on M6P. EP risk ≥5% was used to classify PUL as high risk. Missing values were imputed, and predictions for the five approaches were calculated post hoc. We meta-analysed centre-specific results. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Discrimination, calibration and clinical utility (decision curve analysis) for predicting EP. RESULTS: Of 2899 eligible women, the primary analysis excluded 297 (10%) women who were lost to follow up. The area under the ROC curve for EP was 0.89 (95% CI 0.86-0.91) for M6P, 0.88 (0.86-0.90) for 2ST, 0.86 (0.83-0.88) for M6NP and 0.82 (0.78-0.85) for M4. Sensitivities for EP were 96% (M6P), 94% (2ST), 92% (N6NP), 80% (M4) and 58% (BhCG-RC); false-positive rates were 35%, 33%, 39%, 24% and 13%. M6P and 2ST had the best clinical utility and good overall calibration, with modest variability between centres. CONCLUSIONS: 2ST and M6P performed best for prediction and triage in PUL. TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: The M6 model, as part of a two-step triage strategy, is the best approach to characterise and triage PULs.

Triaging women with pregnancy of unknown location using two-step protocol including M6 model: clinical implementation study.

OBJECTIVE: The M6 risk-prediction model was published as part of a two-step protocol using an initial progesterone level of ≤ 2 nmol/L to identify probable failing pregnancies (Step 1) followed by the M6 model (Step 2). The M6 model has been shown to have good triage performance for stratifying women with a pregnancy of unknown location (PUL) as being at low or high risk of harboring an ectopic pregnancy (EP). This study validated the triage performance of the two-step protocol in clinical practice by evaluating the number of protocol-related adverse events and how effectively patients were triaged. METHODS: This was a prospective multicenter interventional study of 3272 women with a PUL, carried out between January 2015 and January 2017 in four district general hospitals and four university teaching hospitals in the UK. The final pregnancy outcome was defined as: a failed PUL (FPUL), an intrauterine pregnancy (IUP) or an EP (including persistent PUL (PPUL)). FPUL and IUP were grouped as low-risk and EP/PPUL as high-risk PUL. Serum progesterone and human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) levels were measured at presentation in all patients. If the initial progesterone level was ≤ 2 nmol/L, patients were discharged and were asked to have a follow-up urine pregnancy test in 2 weeks to confirm a negative result. If the progesterone level was > 2 nmol/L or a measurement had not been taken, hCG level was measured again at 48 h and results were entered into the M6 model. Patients were managed according to the outcome predicted by the protocol. Those classified as 'low risk, probable FPUL' were advised to perform a urine pregnancy test in 2 weeks and those classified as 'low risk, probable IUP' were invited for a scan a week later. When a woman with a PUL was classified as high risk (i.e. risk of EP ≥ 5%) she was reviewed clinically within 48 h. One center used a progesterone cut-off of ≤ 10 nmol/L and its data were analyzed separately. If the recommended management protocol was not adhered to, this was recorded as a protocol deviation and classified as: unscheduled visit for clinician reason, unscheduled visit for patient reason or incorrect timing of blood test or ultrasound scan. The classifications outlined in the UK Good Clinical Practice (GCP) guidelines were used to evaluate the incidence of adverse events. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Of the 3272 women with a PUL, 2625 were included in the final analysis (317 met the exclusion criteria or were lost to follow-up, while 330 were evaluated using a progesterone cut-off of ≤ 10 nmol/L). Initial progesterone results were available for 2392 (91.1%) patients. In Step 1, 407 (15.5%) patients were classified as low risk (progesterone ≤ 2 nmol/L), of whom seven (1.7%) were ultimately diagnosed with an EP. In 279 of the remaining 2218 women with a PUL, the M6 model was not applied owing to protocol deviation or because the outcome was already known (usually on the basis of an ultrasound scan) before a second hCG reading was taken; of these patients, 30 were diagnosed with an EP. In Step 2, 1038 women with a PUL were classified as low risk, of whom eight (0.8%) had a final outcome of EP. Of 901 women classified as high risk at Step 2, 275 (30.5%) had an EP. Therefore, 275/320 (85.9%) EPs were correctly classified as high risk. Overall, 1445/2625 PUL (55.0%) were classified as low risk, of which 15 (1.0%) were EP. None of these cases resulted in a ruptured EP or significant clinical harm. Sixty-two women participating in the study had an adverse event, but no woman had a serious adverse event as defined in the UK GCP guidelines. CONCLUSIONS: This study has shown that the two-step protocol incorporating the M6 model effectively triaged the majority of women with a PUL as being at low risk of an EP, minimizing the follow-up required for these patients after just two visits. There were few misclassified EPs and none of these women came to significant clinical harm or suffered a serious adverse clinical event. The two-step protocol incorporating the M6 model is an effective and clinically safe way of rationalizing the management of women with a PUL. Copyright © 2019 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Can risk factors, clinical history and symptoms be used to predict risk of ectopic pregnancy in women attending an early pregnancy assessment unit?

OBJECTIVE: To examine whether risk factors and symptoms may be used to predict the likelihood of ectopic pregnancy (EP) in women attending early pregnancy assessment units in the UK. METHODS: This was an observational cohort study of pregnant women under 12 weeks' gestation who were recruited from three London university hospitals between August 2012 and April 2013. One hospital continued recruitment between January and June 2015. A standardized information sheet incorporating patient demographics, medical history and symptoms was completed by patients and confirmed by examining clinicians. The outcome measure was final pregnancy location. RESULTS: There were 1320 eligible patients included in the analysis, with a total of 72 EPs (rate of 6%). Pelvic pain and diarrhea > three times in the previous 24 h were independent symptoms that increased the risk of EP, with relative risks of 2.4 (95% CI, 1.4-4.0; P = 0.002) and 2.2 (95% CI, 1.08-4.5; P = 0.03), respectively. The only other independent marker of risk of EP was duration of vaginal bleeding; the risk of EP increased by 20% (95% CI, 14%-27%) for every 1-day increment in duration (P < 0.001). A logistic regression model incorporating these factors demonstrated an area under the receiver-operating characteristics curve of 0.73 (95% CI, 0.67-0.79). The prevalence of EP was low when there was no pelvic pain, no diarrhea and the duration of bleeding was ≤ 3 days, with an EP rate of 2% (6/391). In the presence of a single risk factor, the EP rate increased to 5% (29/631) when only pelvic pain was present, 8% (1/12) when only diarrhea > three times in the previous 24 h was reported and 9% (9/103) when there was only vaginal bleeding with a duration > 3 days. Women with pelvic pain and vaginal bleeding of any severity for > 3 days had a high EP rate of 16% (23/146). In the nine women who also reported diarrhea > three times in the previous 24 h, two had EP. CONCLUSIONS: Only the presence of pelvic pain, diarrhea > three times in the previous 24 h and duration of bleeding were symptoms that significantly increased the risk for EP in women attending early pregnancy assessment units. Risk factors and symptoms alone could not be used to predict reliably an EP. Copyright © 2016 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

The clinical performance of the M4 decision support model to triage women with a pregnancy of unknown location as at low or high risk of complications.

STUDY QUESTION: What are the adverse outcomes associated with using the M4 model in everyday clinical practice for women with pregnancy of unknown location (PUL)? SUMMARY ANSWER: There were 17/835 (2.0%) adverse events and no serious adverse events associated with the performance of the M4 model in clinical practice. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: The M4 model has previously been shown to stratify women classified as a PUL as at low or high risk of complications with a good level of test performance. The triage performance of the M4 model is better than single measurements of serum progesterone or the hCG ratio (serum hCG at 48 h/hCG at presentation). STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: A prospective multi-centre cohort study of 1022 women with a PUL carried out between August 2012 and December 2013 across 2 university teaching hospitals and 1 district general hospital. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: All women presenting with a PUL to the early pregnancy units of the three hospitals were recruited. The final outcome for PUL was either a failed PUL (FPUL), intrauterine pregnancy (IUP) or ectopic pregnancy (EP) (including persistent PUL (PPUL)), with EP and PPUL considered high-risk PUL. Their hCG results at 0 and 48 h were entered into the M4 model algorithm. If the risk of EP was ≥5%, the PUL was predicted to be high-risk and the participant was asked to re-attend 48 h later for a repeat hCG and transvaginal ultrasound scan by a senior clinician. If the PUL was classified as 'low risk, likely failed PUL', the participant was asked to perform a urinary pregnancy test 2 weeks later. If the PUL was classified as 'low risk, likely intrauterine', the participant was scheduled for a repeat scan in 1 week. Deviations from the management protocol were recorded as either an 'unscheduled visit (participant reason)', 'unscheduled visit (clinician reason)' or 'differences in timing (blood test/ultrasound)'. Adverse events were assessed using definitions outlined in the UK Good Clinical Practice Guidelines' document. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: A total of 835 (82%) women classified as a PUL were managed according to the M4 model (9 met the exclusion criteria, 69 were lost to follow-up, 109 had no hCG result at 48 h). Of these, 443 (53%) had a final outcome of FPUL, 298 (36%) an IUP and 94 (11%) an EP. The M4 model predicted 70% (585/835) PUL as low risk, of which 568 (97%) were confirmed as FPUL or IUP. Of the 17 EP and PPUL misclassified as low risk, 5 had expectant management, 7 medical management with methotrexate and 5 surgical intervention.Nineteen PUL had an unscheduled visit (participant reason), 38 PUL had an unscheduled visit (clinician reason) and 68 PUL had deviations from protocol due to a difference in timing (blood test/ultrasound).Adverse events were reported in 26 PUL and 1 participant had a serious adverse event. A total of 17/26 (65%) adverse events were misclassifications of a high risk PUL as low risk by the M4 model, while 5/26 (19%) adverse events were related to incorrect clinical decisions. Four of the 26 adverse events (15%) were secondary to unscheduled admissions for pain/bleeding. The serious adverse event was due to an incorrect clinical decision. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: A limitation of the study was that 69/1022 (7%) of PUL were lost to follow-up. A 48 h hCG level was missing for 109/1022 (11%) participants. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: The low number of adverse events (2.0%) suggests that expectant management of PUL using the M4 prediction model is safe. The model is an effective way of triaging women with a PUL as being at high- and low-risk of complications and rationalizing follow-up. The multi-centre design of the study is more likely to make the performance of the M4 model generalizable in other populations. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: None. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Not applicable.

Triaging pregnancies of unknown location: the performance of protocols based on single serum progesterone or repeated serum hCG levels.

STUDY QUESTION: How does a protocol based on a single serum progesterone measurement perform as a triage tool in women with pregnancy of unknown location (PUL) in comparison to protocols based on serial hCG measurement? SUMMARY ANSWER: Triage based on the logistic regression model M4 (using initial hCG and hCG ratio (48 h/0 h)) classifies the majority of PUL into low and high risk groups, in contrast to a progesterone protocol based on a serum level threshold of 10 nmol/l. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Low progesterone has been shown to identify failing pregnancies and those at low risk of complications. A prediction model (M4) based on the initial hCG and the hCG ratio at 0 and 48 h can successfully classify PUL into low and high risk groups. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE AND DURATION: A multi-centre diagnostic accuracy study of 1271 women was performed retrospectively on data from women at St. George's Hospital (SGH, London, UK) between February 2005 and 2006, Queen Charlottes & Chelsea Hospital (QCCH, London, UK) between April 2009 and August 2012, and the Royal Prince Alfred Hospital (RPAH, Sydney, Australia) between February 2008 and October 2011. The end-points were the final observed outcome for each pregnancy as a failed PUL (low risk), intrauterine pregnancy (IUP, low risk), or ectopic pregnancy (EP, high risk), and any interventions or complications for EP during the follow-up period. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING AND METHODS: Complete data were available for initial progesterone, 0/48 h hCG and final outcome in 431 of 534 women (81%) at SGH, 396/585 (68%) at QCCH and 96/152 (63%) at RPAH. Missing values were handled using multiple imputation. Three diagnostic approaches were used to classify PUL as high risk: a range of serum progesterone levels were evaluated (>10, 16 and 20 nmol/l) for the progesterone protocol, risk of EP given by the M4 model ≥5% for the M4-based protocol, and hCG ratio was between 0.87 and 1.66 for hCG cut-offs as previously published. Results were analysed using random intercept models or stratified analysis to account for variability between centres. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: The progesterone protocol based on levels of >10 nmol/l classified 24% (95% confidence interval 20-28%) of failed PUL, 95% (92-97%) of IUP and 76% (67-83%) of EP as high risk. The M4 protocol classified 14% (11-17%) of failed PUL, 37% (31-43%) of IUP and 84% (76-90%) of EP as high risk. The hCG ratio cut-offs classified 10% (8-12%) of failed PUL, 15% (11-20%) of IUP and 63% (53-71%) of EP as high risk. Using complete cases only, 67% of EP treated with methotrexate (n = 48) and 89% surgically managed (n = 37) were correctly classified by the progesterone protocol, 96 and 81% by M4 protocol and 75 and 65% by hCG ratio cut offs, respectively. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Data were incomplete for 103 (19%), 189 (32%) and 56 (37%) patients at SGH, QCCH and RPAH, respectively; however, we are reassured by the minimal differences seen between the results of complete cases and those following imputation of missing values. The variation in the inclusion criteria between the three centres is also a potential limitation of this study; however, it reflects real clinical practice. Furthermore, the hCG ratio cut-offs were not originally developed to optimize triage. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: The results show that serum progesterone is less efficient for triage than serial hCG measurements assessed using the M4 model, the striking difference being serum progesterone places nearly all IUP in the high-risk category. A two-step strategy combining single-visit and two-visit approaches should be investigated. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: Funding was from Research Foundation-Flanders (FWO). There are no competing interests.