Imperial College London
Portrait Picture

Mr SRDJAN SASO

Faculty of Medicine, Department of Metabolism, Digestion and Reproduction

Honorary Clinical Senior Lecturer
 
 
 
//

Contact

 

+44 (0)7890 795 182srdjan.saso01

 
 
//

Location

 

Institute of Reproductive and Developmental BiologyHammersmith Campus

//

Summary

 

Publications

Citation

BibTex format

@article{Sayasneh:2016:10.1038/bjc.2016.227,
author = {Sayasneh, A and Ferrara, L and De, Cock B and Saso, S and Al-Memar, M and Johnson, S and Kaijser, J and Carvalho, J and Husicka, R and Smith, A and Stalder, C and Blanco, MC and Ettore, G and Van, Calster B and Timmerman, D and Bourne, T},
doi = {10.1038/bjc.2016.227},
journal = {British Journal of Cancer},
pages = {542--548},
title = {Evaluating the risk of ovarian cancer before surgery using the ADNEX model: a multicentre external validation study},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/bjc.2016.227},
volume = {115},
year = {2016}
}
Download

RIS format (EndNote, RefMan)

TY  - JOUR
AB  - BACKGROUND: The International Ovarian Tumour Analysis (IOTA) group have developed the ADNEX (The Assessment of Different NEoplasias in the adneXa) model to predict the risk that an ovarian mass is benign, borderline, stage I, stages II-IV or metastatic. We aimed to externally validate the ADNEX model in the hands of examiners with varied training and experience. METHODS: This was a multicentre cross-sectional cohort study for diagnostic accuracy. Patients were recruited from three cancer centres in Europe. Patients who underwent transvaginal ultrasonography and had a histological diagnosis of surgically removed tissue were included. The diagnostic performance of the ADNEX model with and without the use of CA125 as a predictor was calculated. RESULTS: Data from 610 women were analysed. The overall prevalence of malignancy was 30%. The area under the receiver operator curve (AUC) for the ADNEX diagnostic performance to differentiate between benign and malignant masses was 0.937 (95% CI: 0.915-0.954) when CA125 was included, and 0.925 (95% CI: 0.902-0.943) when CA125 was excluded. The calibration plots suggest good correspondence between the total predicted risk of malignancy and the observed proportion of malignancies. The model showed good discrimination between the different subtypes. CONCLUSIONS: The performance of the ADNEX model retains its performance on external validation in the hands of ultrasound examiners with varied training and experience.British Journal of Cancer advance online publication, 2 August 2016; doi:10.1038/bjc.2016.227 www.bjcancer.com.
AU  - Sayasneh,A
AU  - Ferrara,L
AU  - De,Cock B
AU  - Saso,S
AU  - Al-Memar,M
AU  - Johnson,S
AU  - Kaijser,J
AU  - Carvalho,J
AU  - Husicka,R
AU  - Smith,A
AU  - Stalder,C
AU  - Blanco,MC
AU  - Ettore,G
AU  - Van,Calster B
AU  - Timmerman,D
AU  - Bourne,T
DO  - 10.1038/bjc.2016.227
EP  - 548
PY  - 2016///
SN  - 1532-1827
SP  - 542
TI  - Evaluating the risk of ovarian cancer before surgery using the ADNEX model: a multicentre external validation study
T2  - British Journal of Cancer
UR  - http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/bjc.2016.227
UR  - http://hdl.handle.net/10044/1/39161
VL  - 115
ER  -
Download