Distinguishing the benign and malignant adnexal mass: An external validation of prognostic models

Ben W J Mol, Dorry Boll, Maartje De Kanter, A. PeterM Heintz, Edith A. Sijmons, S. Guid Oei, Hans Bal, Hans A M Brölmann

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

92 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective. Because external validation of the present models has not been reported, the purpose of the present study was to assess existing diagnostic models that are used to distinguish malignant from benign masses. Methods. We tested the performance of existing models in a prospectively assembled data set of 170 patients with an adnexal mass. Twenty-one models that have been reported previously were assessed. The models were based on combinations of ultrasound findings, color Doppler tests, CA-125 measurement, age, and/or menopausal status. For each model, we constructed ROC curves and calculated an area under the ROC curve. Results. Of the 170 adnexal masses that were operated on, 30 (18%) were malignant. The area under the ROC curve of 21 models that were externally validated varied between 0.69 and 0.90. We found the performance of the existing models to be inferior to the performance reported in the initial studies. Even models that incorporated multiple diagnostic tools and that were developed using logistic regression models or neural networks had an area under the ROC curve of 0.86 at maximum. In the case where we focused on almost perfect sensitivity, the highest specificities varied between 0.45 and 0.60. Conclusion. Although diagnostic models might be of value in the preoperative assessment of the adnexal mass, their diagnostic performance is not as good as that reported in the original publications.

LanguageEnglish
Pages162-167
Number of pages6
JournalGynecologic Oncology
Volume80
Issue number2
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Jan 2001

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Oncology
  • Obstetrics and Gynaecology

Cite this

Mol, B. W. J., Boll, D., De Kanter, M., Heintz, A. P., Sijmons, E. A., Oei, S. G., ... Brölmann, H. A. M. (2001). Distinguishing the benign and malignant adnexal mass: An external validation of prognostic models. Gynecologic Oncology, 80(2), 162-167. https://doi.org/10.1006/gyno.2000.6052
Mol, Ben W J ; Boll, Dorry ; De Kanter, Maartje ; Heintz, A. PeterM ; Sijmons, Edith A. ; Oei, S. Guid ; Bal, Hans ; Brölmann, Hans A M. / Distinguishing the benign and malignant adnexal mass : An external validation of prognostic models. In: Gynecologic Oncology. 2001 ; Vol. 80, No. 2. pp. 162-167.
@article{c25001aa880e45f6950ea49d92e2e34b,
title = "Distinguishing the benign and malignant adnexal mass: An external validation of prognostic models",
abstract = "Objective. Because external validation of the present models has not been reported, the purpose of the present study was to assess existing diagnostic models that are used to distinguish malignant from benign masses. Methods. We tested the performance of existing models in a prospectively assembled data set of 170 patients with an adnexal mass. Twenty-one models that have been reported previously were assessed. The models were based on combinations of ultrasound findings, color Doppler tests, CA-125 measurement, age, and/or menopausal status. For each model, we constructed ROC curves and calculated an area under the ROC curve. Results. Of the 170 adnexal masses that were operated on, 30 (18{\%}) were malignant. The area under the ROC curve of 21 models that were externally validated varied between 0.69 and 0.90. We found the performance of the existing models to be inferior to the performance reported in the initial studies. Even models that incorporated multiple diagnostic tools and that were developed using logistic regression models or neural networks had an area under the ROC curve of 0.86 at maximum. In the case where we focused on almost perfect sensitivity, the highest specificities varied between 0.45 and 0.60. Conclusion. Although diagnostic models might be of value in the preoperative assessment of the adnexal mass, their diagnostic performance is not as good as that reported in the original publications.",
author = "Mol, {Ben W J} and Dorry Boll and {De Kanter}, Maartje and Heintz, {A. PeterM} and Sijmons, {Edith A.} and Oei, {S. Guid} and Hans Bal and Br{\"o}lmann, {Hans A M}",
year = "2001",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1006/gyno.2000.6052",
language = "English",
volume = "80",
pages = "162--167",
journal = "Gynecologic oncology",
issn = "0090-8258",
publisher = "Academic Press Inc.",
number = "2",

}

Mol, BWJ, Boll, D, De Kanter, M, Heintz, AP, Sijmons, EA, Oei, SG, Bal, H & Brölmann, HAM 2001, 'Distinguishing the benign and malignant adnexal mass: An external validation of prognostic models', Gynecologic Oncology, vol. 80, no. 2, pp. 162-167. https://doi.org/10.1006/gyno.2000.6052

Distinguishing the benign and malignant adnexal mass : An external validation of prognostic models. / Mol, Ben W J; Boll, Dorry; De Kanter, Maartje; Heintz, A. PeterM; Sijmons, Edith A.; Oei, S. Guid; Bal, Hans; Brölmann, Hans A M.

In: Gynecologic Oncology, Vol. 80, No. 2, 01.01.2001, p. 162-167.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Distinguishing the benign and malignant adnexal mass

T2 - Gynecologic oncology

AU - Mol, Ben W J

AU - Boll, Dorry

AU - De Kanter, Maartje

AU - Heintz, A. PeterM

AU - Sijmons, Edith A.

AU - Oei, S. Guid

AU - Bal, Hans

AU - Brölmann, Hans A M

PY - 2001/1/1

Y1 - 2001/1/1

N2 - Objective. Because external validation of the present models has not been reported, the purpose of the present study was to assess existing diagnostic models that are used to distinguish malignant from benign masses. Methods. We tested the performance of existing models in a prospectively assembled data set of 170 patients with an adnexal mass. Twenty-one models that have been reported previously were assessed. The models were based on combinations of ultrasound findings, color Doppler tests, CA-125 measurement, age, and/or menopausal status. For each model, we constructed ROC curves and calculated an area under the ROC curve. Results. Of the 170 adnexal masses that were operated on, 30 (18%) were malignant. The area under the ROC curve of 21 models that were externally validated varied between 0.69 and 0.90. We found the performance of the existing models to be inferior to the performance reported in the initial studies. Even models that incorporated multiple diagnostic tools and that were developed using logistic regression models or neural networks had an area under the ROC curve of 0.86 at maximum. In the case where we focused on almost perfect sensitivity, the highest specificities varied between 0.45 and 0.60. Conclusion. Although diagnostic models might be of value in the preoperative assessment of the adnexal mass, their diagnostic performance is not as good as that reported in the original publications.

AB - Objective. Because external validation of the present models has not been reported, the purpose of the present study was to assess existing diagnostic models that are used to distinguish malignant from benign masses. Methods. We tested the performance of existing models in a prospectively assembled data set of 170 patients with an adnexal mass. Twenty-one models that have been reported previously were assessed. The models were based on combinations of ultrasound findings, color Doppler tests, CA-125 measurement, age, and/or menopausal status. For each model, we constructed ROC curves and calculated an area under the ROC curve. Results. Of the 170 adnexal masses that were operated on, 30 (18%) were malignant. The area under the ROC curve of 21 models that were externally validated varied between 0.69 and 0.90. We found the performance of the existing models to be inferior to the performance reported in the initial studies. Even models that incorporated multiple diagnostic tools and that were developed using logistic regression models or neural networks had an area under the ROC curve of 0.86 at maximum. In the case where we focused on almost perfect sensitivity, the highest specificities varied between 0.45 and 0.60. Conclusion. Although diagnostic models might be of value in the preoperative assessment of the adnexal mass, their diagnostic performance is not as good as that reported in the original publications.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0035131736&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1006/gyno.2000.6052

DO - 10.1006/gyno.2000.6052

M3 - Article

VL - 80

SP - 162

EP - 167

JO - Gynecologic oncology

JF - Gynecologic oncology

SN - 0090-8258

IS - 2

ER -