PREVALENCE OF OVARIAN CANCER IN WOMEN WITH PERSISTENT ADNEXAL MASSES USING IOTA SIMPLE RULES.
Main Article Content
Keywords
Ovarian cancer; Adnexal masses; IOTA rules; Ultrasound
Abstract
: The potential for malignancy makes persistent adnexal masses in women a challenge for diagnoses. The ability for practitioners to determine in a timely fashion the presence of borderline and borderline lesions and malignancy becomes a priority for appropriate care. The IOTA Simple Rules provide a standardized and validated approach for evaluating the masses which improves the diagnostic accuracy with the use of an ultrasound.
Objectives: Assessing the frequency of ovarian cancer amongst women with persistent adnexal masses and investigating how well the IOTA Simple Rules can distinguish benign from malignant ovarian tumors.
Methodology: This study was conducted in the department of Obstetrics & gynecology Ayub Medical College, MTI, Abbottabad from Jan 2023 to Jan 2024. During outpatient clinic visits and referrals of inpatients, the participants of the study were identified. We excluded pregnant women, those with a history of frozen pelvis or ovarian surgery, patients with acute pelvic inflammatory disease, and patients with missing ultrasound records. Total clinical examinations and assessments were performed on the study participants, followed by standardized transvaginal ultrasound examinations performed by certified ultrasound technicians. Then, IOTA Simple Rules were used to classify adnexal masses on ultrasound as benign, malignant, or of unclear diagnosis, in relation to the presence of solid constituents, papillary projections, stationing, vascularity, and acoustic shadowing. In the case of a position diagnosis of an ambiguous mass, a senior radiologist with specialist knowledge of gynecological imaging was consulted. Patients with an ambiguous mass were referred for surgery to obtain a definitive diagnosis. The same was done for any children with an unrelated suspected mass, after clearing the Imagistics. We followed benign-appearing adnexal masses with imaging to confirm stability or resolution. A structured questionnaire was used to collect the clinical and imaging records of the patients.
Results: Mean of 42.8 ± 11.6 years was obtained when 120 women were analyzed. 28 of these women suffered from malignancy (23.3%), as confirmed by the histopathology. According to the IOTA Simple Rules, 74 of the masses were considered benign, while 30 were considered malignant and 16 were not able to be classified. There was a strong positive correlation of malignancy with the malignant IOTA features (p < 0.001). 89.3% of the population of the study was found to be sensitive and 92.1% were found to be specific. The benign lesions were found to be cystadenomas, desmoids, and endometrioses, while the malignant tumors were found to be serous cystadenocarcinoma, which was found to be the most common. The overall diagnostic accuracy was 91.6%.
Conclusion: There is a high prevalence of ovarian cancer among women with persistent adnexal masses. This finding underscores the importance of formulating systematic approaches to diagnostic assessment. IOTA Simple Rules has shown sufficient sensitivity and specificity to justify using the rules in everyday gynecological practice to distinguish between malignant and benign lesions. Their use can lower the number of inappropriate surgeries, improve the ease in determining the need for an oncology referral, and improve diagnostic confidence in resource-poor settings.
References
2. Antil N, Raghu PR, Shen L, Tiyarattanachai T, Chang EM, Ferguson CWK, et al. Interobserver agreement between eight observers using IOTA simple rules and O-RADS lexicon descriptors for adnexal masses. Abdominal radiology (New York). 2022;47(9):3318-26.
3. Bahadur A, Bhattacharya N, Mundhra R, Khoiwal K, Chawla L, Singh R, et al. Comparison of Human Epididymis Protein 4, Cancer Antigen 125, and Ultrasound Prediction Model in Differentiating Benign from Malignant Adnexal Masses. Journal of mid-life health. 2023;14(3):176-83.
4. Basha MAA, Metwally MI, Gamil SA, Khater HM, Aly SA, El Sammak AA, et al. Comparison of O-RADS, GI-RADS, and IOTA simple rules regarding malignancy rate, validity, and reliability for diagnosis of adnexal masses. European radiology. 2021;31(2):674-84.
5. Carballo EV, Maturen KE, Li Z, Patel-Lippmann KK, Wasnik AP, Sadowski EA, et al. Surgical outcomes of adnexal masses classified by IOTA ultrasound simple rules. Scientific reports. 2022;12(1):21848.
6. Chacon E, Arraiza M, Manzour N, Benito A, Mínguez J, Vázquez-Vicente D, et al. Ultrasound examination, MRI, or ROMA for discriminating between inconclusive adnexal masses as determined by IOTA Simple Rules: a prospective study. International journal of gynecological cancer : official journal of the International Gynecological Cancer Society. 2023;33(6):951-6.
7. Cherukuri S, Jajoo S, Dewani D. The International Ovarian Tumor Analysis-Assessment of Different Neoplasias in the Adnexa (IOTA-ADNEX) Model Assessment for Risk of Ovarian Malignancy in Adnexal Masses. Cureus. 2022;14(11):e31194.
8. Esquivel Villabona AL, Rodríguez JN, Ayala N, Buriticá C, Gómez AC, Velandia AM, et al. Two-Step Strategy for Optimizing the Preoperative Classification of Adnexal Masses in a University Hospital, Using International Ovarian Tumor Analysis Models: Simple Rules and Assessment of Different NEoplasias in the adneXa Model. Journal of ultrasound in medicine : official journal of the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine. 2022;41(2):471-82.
9. Haliti TI, Hoxha I, Mojsiu R, Mandal R, Goç G, Hoti KD. Diagnostic Accuracy of Biomarkers and International Ovarian Tumor Analysis Simple Rules in Diagnosis of Ovarian Cancer. Hematology/oncology clinics of North America. 2024;38(1):251-65.
10. Hiett AK, Sonek JD, Guy M, Reid TJ. Performance of IOTA Simple Rules, Simple Rules risk assessment, ADNEX model and O-RADS in differentiating between benign and malignant adnexal lesions in North American women. Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2022;59(5):668-76.
11. Kapoor S, Singhal S, Dhamija E, Manchanda S, Malhotra N, Bhatla N. Diagnostic performance of ultrasound reporting systems in evaluation of adnexal masses: A prospective observational study. European journal of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive biology. 2024;301:186-93.
12. Khastgir G, Siwatch S, Singh T, Jain V, Sikka P, Srinivasan R. Beyond the Image: Performance of O-RADS, ADNEX, IOTA Simple Rules & RMI 4 in differentiating benign and malignant adnexal masses - An Indian perspective. European journal of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive biology. 2021;313:114585.
13. Kulkarni AM, Mehravaran S, Lee SY. IOTA Simple Rules: Review of 10 Points for Evaluation of Adnexal Masses. Radiographics : a review publication of the Radiological Society of North America, Inc. 2022;42(1):E29-e30.
14. Lu B, He W, Liu C, Wang P, Yang P, Zhao Z, et al. Differentiating Benign From Malignant Ovarian Masses With Solid Components: Diagnostic Performance of CEUS Combined With IOTA Simple Rules and O-RADS. Ultrasound in medicine & biology. 2024;50(9):1449-58.
15. Lu B, Liu C, Qi J, He W, Shi T, Zhu Y, et al. Comparison of contrast-enhanced ultrasound, IOTA simple rules and O-RADS for assessing the malignant risk of sonographically appearing solid ovarian masses. Journal of gynecology obstetrics and human reproduction. 2023;52(4):102564.
16. Massobrio R, Mariani LL, Conti D, De Grandis T, Buonomo F, Badellino E, et al. Ultrasonographic diagnosis of adnexal masses: interobserver agreement in the interpretation of videos, using IOTA terminology. Archives of gynecology and obstetrics. 2024;309(1):211-8.
17. Moro F, Momi M, Ledger A, Barreñada L, Ceusters J, Sturla D, et al. External validation of ultrasound-based models for differentiating between benign and malignant adnexal masses: a nationwide prospective multicenter study (IOTA phase 6). American journal of obstetrics and gynecology. 2021;233(6):629.e1-.e13.
18. Rabiej-Wronska E, Wiechec M, Pitynski K, Wiercinska E, Kotlarz A. Ultrasound differentiation between benign versus malignant adnexal masses in pregnant patients. Ginekologia polska. 2022;93(8):643-9.
19. Terzic M, Aimagambetova G, Norton M, Della Corte L, Marín-Buck A, Lisón JF, et al. Scoring systems for the evaluation of adnexal masses nature: current knowledge and clinical applications. Journal of obstetrics and gynaecology : the journal of the Institute of Obstetrics and Gynaecology. 2021;41(3):340-7.
20. Tian C, Han YW, Shi ZJ, Li YW, Xie L, Liu XL, et al. Diagnostic value of the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis simple rules combined with contrast-enhanced ultrasound for adnexal masses. International journal of gynecological cancer : official journal of the International Gynecological Cancer Society. 2021;35(2):100049.
21. Tian C, Wen SB, Zhao CY, Yan XN, Du JX. Comparative diagnostic accuracy of the IOTA SRR and LR2 scoring systems for discriminating between malignant and Benign Adnexal masses by junior physicians in Chinese patients: a retrospective observational study. BMC women's health. 2023;23(1):585.
22. Velayo CL, Reforma KN, Sicam RVG, Diwa MH, Sy ADR, Tantengco OAG. Diagnostic Performances of Ultrasound-Based Models for Predicting Malignancy in Patients with Adnexal Masses. Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland). 2022;11(1).
23. Vilendecic Z, Radojevic M, Stefanovic K, Dotlic J, Likic Ladjevic I, Dugalic S, et al. Accuracy of IOTA Simple Rules, IOTA ADNEX Model, RMI, and Subjective Assessment for Preoperative Adnexal Mass Evaluation: The Experience of a Tertiary Care Referral Hospital. Gynecologic and obstetric investigation. 2023;88(2):116-22.
24. Xie WT, Wang YQ, Xiang ZS, Du ZS, Huang SX, Chen YJ, et al. Efficacy of IOTA simple rules, O-RADS, and CA125 to distinguish benign and malignant adnexal masses. Journal of ovarian research. 2022;15(1):15.
25. Yang Y, Ju H, Huang Y. Diagnostic performance of IOTA SR and O-RADS combined with CA125, HE4, and risk of malignancy algorithm to distinguish benign and malignant adnexal masses. European journal of radiology. 2023;165:110926.
26. Yang Y, Wang H, Su N, Gao L, Gu Y, Cai S, et al. O-RADS US versus IOTA simple rules in the diagnosis of benign and malignant adnexal masses: a prospective study. BMC medical imaging. 2021;25(1):297.
27. Zhang Q, Dai X, Li W. Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of O-RADS Ultrasound and O-RADS MRI for Risk Assessment of Ovarian and Adnexal Lesions. AJR American journal of roentgenology. 2023;221(1):21-33.

