IOTA Scoring and Tumor Marker Combination as a Tool to Decide on Minimally Invasive Approach for Adnexal Mass: A Review in Low-resource Setting of Islands
Citation Information :
Sahoo PS, Patil S, Kumar D, Kathpalia SK, Nair NR. IOTA Scoring and Tumor Marker Combination as a Tool to Decide on Minimally Invasive Approach for Adnexal Mass: A Review in Low-resource Setting of Islands. J South Asian Feder Obs Gynae 2023; 15 (3):292-296.
Background: Accurate preoperative initial evaluation of adnexal masses to distinguish between benign and malignancy is essential to plan the extent and surgical mode. The purpose of our study was to assess the effectiveness and precision of the international ovarian tumor analysis (IOTA) scoring model in low-resource settings of peripheral islands of India.
Material and Methods: A retrospective study of all cases operated for adnexal mass in our department between 2017 and 2021 was carried out in this medical college. Cases of adnexal mass were subjected to IOTA scoring, tumor markers, and clinical profile analysis and were classified as presumptively benign, malignant, or inconclusive to decide the mode of surgery. The diagnostic performance of the IOTA system was evaluated and different variables were analyzed.
Result: Among total of 53 patients, 32 (60.3%) could undergo laparoscopic management. Only one case of the borderline endometrioid tumor was missed as benign by the scoring system (3.1%). The sensitivity of the IOTA regression system was 93%, the specificity 83.78%, and the positive and negative predictive values were 71% and 96% respectively. The negative likelihood ratio was 0.07 and accuracy was around 86%. None of the cases needed intraoperative conversion.
Conclusion: International ovarian tumor analysis (IOTA) scoring system is a simple, clinically feasible diagnostic tool that accurately distinguishes benign from malignant adnexal pathologies and can guide in deciding on a laparoscopic approach.
Clinical significance: Benefits of laparoscopy can be provided even in low-resource setup by use of the IOTA ultrasonic scoring model.
Seshadri L. Benign diseases of the ovary and fallopian tube. In essentials of gynaecology. 2nd edition. New Delhi: Wolters Kluwer/Lippincott Williams and Wilkins; 2016. p. 167.
Nezhat F, Nezhat C, Welander CE, et al. Four ovarian cancers diagnosed during laparoscopic management of 1011 women with adnexal masses. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1992;167(3):790–796. DOI: 10.1016/s0002-9378(11)91591-9.
Canis M, Mage G, Pouly JL, et al. Laparoscopic diagnosis of adnexal cystic masses: A 12-year experience with long-term follow-up. Obstet Gynecol 1994;83(5 pt 1):707–712. PMID: 8164928.
Bullock B, Larkin L, Turker L, et al. Management of the adnexal mass: Considerations for the family medicine physician. Front Med (Lausanne) 2022;9:913549. DOI: 10.3389/fmed.2022.913549.
Rai R, Bhutia PC, Tshomo U. Clinicopathological profile of adnexal masses presenting to a tertiary-care hospital in Bhutan. South Asian J Cancer 2019;8(3):168–172. DOI: 10.4103/sajc.sajc_303_18.
Weber S, McCann CK, Boruta DM, et al. Laparoscopic surgical staging of early ovarian cancer. Rev Obstet Gynecol 2011;4(3–4):117–122. PMID: 22229064.
Matsushita H, Watanabe K, Yokoi T, et al. Unexpected ovarian malignancy following laparoscopic excision of adnexal masses. Hum Reprod 2014;29(9):1912–1917. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/deu162.
Dochez V, Caillon H, Vaucel E, et al. Biomarkers and algorithms for diagnosis of ovarian cancer: CA125, HE4, RMI and ROMA, a review. J Ovarian Res 2019;12:28. DOI: 10.1186/s13048-019-0503-7.
Yurkovetsky Z, Skates S, Lomakin A, et al. Development of a multimarker assay for early detection of ovarian cancer. J Clin Oncol 2010;28(13):2159–2166. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2008.19.2484.
Yang S, Tang J, Rong Y, et al. Performance of the IOTA ADNEX model combined with HE4 for identifying early-stage ovarian cancer. Front Oncol 2022;12:949766. DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2022.949766.
Berek JS, Hacker NF. Ovarian Cancer – Tumor Markers and Screening. In: Berek and Hacker's Gynecologic Oncology. 6th edition. Philadelphia: Wolters Kluwer; 2015. p. 447–448.
Malla VG, Tuteja A, Singh P. Rethinking the role of serum cancer antigen 125 and risk of malignancy index in Indian women with ovarian masses: Newer perspectives and review of literature. J South Asian Feder Obst Gynae 2018;10(2):110–117. DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10006-1571.
Shekar NC, Dasappa P, Rangaiah N, et al. Evaluation of risk of malignancy index 5 - A new indicator in differentiating benign and malignant ovarian masses. J South Asian Feder Obst Gynae 2019;11(4):258–262. DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10006-1706.
Sohn C, Voigt H-J, Vetter K. Doppler ultrasound in gynecology. In: Doppler ultrasound in gynecology and obstetrics. Stuttgart: Thieme; 2004. p. 189.
Timmerman D, Testa AC, Bourne T, et al. Simple ultrasound-based rules for the diagnosis of ovarian cancer. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2008;31:681–690. DOI: 10.1002/uog.5365.
Timmerman D, Planchamp F, Bourne T, et al. ESGO/ISUOG/IOTA/ESGE consensus statement on preoperative diagnosis of ovarian tumors. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2021;58(1):148–168. DOI: 10.1002/uog.23635.
Sladkevicius P, Valentin L. Interobserver agreement in describing the ultrasound appearance of adnexal masses and in calculating the risk of malignancy using logistic regression models. Clin Cancer Res 2015;21(3):594–601. DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-14-0906.
Sayasneh A, Wynants L, Preisler J, et al. Multicentre external validation of IOTA prediction models and RMI by operators with varied training. Br J Cancer 2013;108(12):2448–2454. DOI: 10.1038/bjc.2013.224.
Xie WT, Wang YQ, Xiang ZS, et al. Efficacy of IOTA simple rules, O-RADS, and CA125 to distinguish benign and malignant adnexal masses. J Ovarian Res 2022;15(1):15. DOI: 10.1186/s13048-022-00947-9.
Yanaranop M, Anakrat V, Siricharoenthai S, et al. Is the risk of ovarian malignancy algorithm better than other tests for predicting ovarian malignancy in women with pelvic masses? Gynecol Obstet Investig 2017;82(1):47–53. DOI: 10.1159/000446238.