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.