Does the Risk of Ovarian Malignancy Algorithm Provide Better Diagnostic Performance Than HE4 and CA125 in the Presurgical Differentiation of Adnexal Tumors in Polish Women?
Table 3
The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and diagnostic accuracy of H4, CA125, and ROMA according to menopausal status.
Group
Diagnostic test
Sensitivity (%) (95% CI)
Specificity (%) (95% CI)
Positive predictive value (%) (95% CI)
Negative predictive value (%) (95% CI)
Diagnostic accuracy (%) (95% CI)
Whole group ()
HE4
70% (61%–79%)
92.5% (89.2%–95.7%)
78.7% (70.1%–87.2%)
88.6% (84.8%–92.4%)
86.1% (82.5%–89.7%)
CA125
82% (71.4%–92.6%)
68.3% (62.5%–74%)
33.9% (25.5%–42.3%)
95% (91.9%–98.2%)
70.5% (65.4%–75.7%)
ROMA
80% (68.9%–91.1%)
82.5% (77.9%–87.2%)
47.6% (36.9%–58.3%)
95.4% (92.6%–98.2%)
82.1% (77.8%–86.4%)
Premenopausal subgroup ()
HE4
70% (41.6%–98.4%)
92.7% (88.9%–96.5%)
35% (14.1%–55.9%)
98.2% (96.2%–100%)
91.5% (87.5%–95.5%)
CA125
80% (55.2%–100%)
62.4% (55.2%–69.5%)
10.7% (3.7%–17.7%)
98.2% (95.8%–100%)
63.3% (56.4%–70.2%)
ROMA
70% (41.6%–98.4%)
82% (76.4%–87.7%)
17.9% (5.9%–30%)
98% (95.7%–100%)
81.4% (75.8%–86.9%)
Postmenopausal subgroup ()
HE4
70% (55.8%–84.2%)
91.9% (85.7%–98.1%)
82.4% (69.5%–95.2%)
85% (77.2%–92.8%)
84.2% (77.5%–90.9%)
CA125
82.5% (70.7%–94.3%)
82.4% (73.8%–91.1%)
71.7% (58.7%–84.8%)
89.7% (82.5%–96.9%)
82.5% (75.5%–89.4%)
ROMA
82.5% (70.7%–94.3%)
83.8% (75.4%–92.2%)
73.3% (60.4%–86.3%)
89.9% (82.7%–97%)
83.3% (76.5%–90.2%)
CI: confidence interval; ROMA: Risk of Ovarian Malignancy Algorithm.
