Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35406551›Full record

ArticleCancers2022

Biomarker-Based Models for Preoperative Assessment of Adnexal Mass: A Multicenter Validation Study.

Rafał Watrowski, Eva Obermayr, Christine Wallisch, Stefanie Aust, Nicole Concin, Elena Ioana Braicu, Toon Van Gorp, Annette Hasenburg, Jalid Sehouli, Ignace Vergote and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cancers, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 26% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Diagnostics of Ovarian Tumors in Postmenopausal Patients.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022
    Review
  12. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors at 6 institutions in 3 countries.

Rafał WatrowskiFaculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, 79106 Freiburg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-6828-1887
Eva ObermayrMolecular Oncology Group, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Comprehensive Cancer Center-Gynecologic Cancer Unit, Medical University of Vienna, 1090 Vienna, Austria.ORCID 0000-0001-6324-2961
Christine WallischSection for Clinical Biometrics, Center for Medical Statistics, Informatics and Intelligent Systems, Medical University of Vienna, 1090 Vienna, Austria.ORCID 0000-0003-3943-6234
Stefanie AustMolecular Oncology Group, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Comprehensive Cancer Center-Gynecologic Cancer Unit, Medical University of Vienna, 1090 Vienna, Austria.ORCID 0000-0002-6760-949X
Nicole ConcinDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Innsbruck Medical University, 6020 Innsbruck, Austria.
Elena Ioana BraicuDepartment of Gynecology, European Competence Center for Ovarian Cancer, Campus Virchow Klinikum, Charité, Universitätsmedizin Berlin, 13353 Berlin, Germany.
Toon Van GorpDivision of Gynecological Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Leuven Cancer Institute, University Hospitals Leuven, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, 3000 Leuven, Belgium.
Annette HasenburgDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Medical Center, University of Freiburg, 79106 Freiburg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-1547-4968
Jalid SehouliDepartment of Gynecology, European Competence Center for Ovarian Cancer, Campus Virchow Klinikum, Charité, Universitätsmedizin Berlin, 13353 Berlin, Germany.
Ignace VergoteDivision of Gynecological Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Leuven Cancer Institute, University Hospitals Leuven, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, 3000 Leuven, Belgium.
Robert ZeillingerMolecular Oncology Group, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Comprehensive Cancer Center-Gynecologic Cancer Unit, Medical University of Vienna, 1090 Vienna, Austria.
Comprehensive Cancer Center Vienna · ATCharité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin · DEKU Leuven · BEUniversity of Freiburg · DEInnsbruck Medical University · ATMedical University of Vienna · AT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Ovarian cancer (OC) is the most lethal genital malignancy in women. We aimed to develop and validate new proteomic-based models for non-invasive diagnosis of OC. We also compared them to the modified Risk of Ovarian Malignancy Algorithm (ROMA-50), the Copenhagen Index (CPH-I) and our earlier Proteomic Model 2017. Biomarkers were assessed using bead-based multiplex technology (Luminex®) in 356 women (250 with malignant and 106 with benign ovarian tumors) from five European centers. The training cohort included 279 women from three centers, and the validation cohort 77 women from two other centers. Of six previously studied serum proteins (CA125, HE4, osteopontin [OPN], prolactin, leptin, and macrophage migration inhibitory factor [MIF]), four contributed significantly to the Proteomic Model 2021 (CA125, OPN, prolactin, MIF), while leptin and HE4 were omitted by the algorithm. The Proteomic Model 2021 revealed a c-index of 0.98 (95% CI 0.96, 0.99) in the training cohort; however, in the validation cohort it only achieved a c-index of 0.82 (95% CI 0.72, 0.91). Adding patient age to the Proteomic Model 2021 constituted the Combined Model 2021, with a c-index of 0.99 (95% CI 0.97, 1) in the training cohort and a c-index of 0.86 (95% CI 0.78, 0.95) in the validation cohort. The Full Combined Model 2021 (all six proteins with age) yielded a c-index of 0.98 (95% CI 0.97, 0.99) in the training cohort and a c-index of 0.89 (95% CI 0.81, 0.97) in the validation cohort. The validation of our previous Proteomic Model 2017, as well as the ROMA-50 and CPH-I revealed a c-index of 0.9 (95% CI 0.82, 0.97), 0.54 (95% CI 0.38, 0.69) and 0.92 (95% CI 0.85, 0.98), respectively. In postmenopausal women, the three newly developed models all achieved a specificity of 1.00, a positive predictive value (PPV) of 1.00, and a sensitivity of >0.9. Performance in women under 50 years of age (c-index below 0.6) or with normal CA125 (c-index close to 0.5) was poor. CA125 and OPN had the best discriminating power as single markers. In summary, the CPH-I, the two combined 2021 Models, and the Proteomic Model 2017 showed satisfactory diagnostic accuracies, with no clear superiority of either model. Notably, although combining values of only four proteins with age, the Combined Model 2021 performed comparably to the Full Combined Model 2021. The models confirmed their exceptional diagnostic performance in women aged ≥50. All models outperformed the ROMA-50.

Indexed as

adnexal massCA125Copenhagen Indexdiagnostic accuracyLuminexmultiplexovarian cancerpredictive modelstumor marker

Identifiers

PMID35406551
PMCPMC8997061
OpenAlexW4221020603

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.