Table 2.

Specificity and sensitivity results of various screening strategies in the setting of a pelvic mass

Algorithm or assay	Ref.	Sensitivity (%)	Specificity (%)
ROMA	Karlsen et al[44]	94.4	76.5
	Moore et al[45]	94.3	75
	Sandri et al[46]	91.2	75
		89.3	81.7
	Van Gorp et al[89]	84.7	76.8
	Sandri et al[46]	84.4	90
	Chan et al[47]	89.2	87.3
	Kaijser et al[90]	84	80
RMI	Karlsen et al[44]	94.4	81.5
	Håkansson et al[48]	92	82
	Moore et al[45]	84.6	75
	Van den Akker[49]	81	85
	Van Gorp et al[89]	76	92.4
OVA1	Bristow et al[50]	92.4	53.5
	Longoria et al[52]	92.2	49.4
OVA1 +	Bristow et al[50]	95.7	50.7
Clinical assessment	Longoria et al[52]	95.3	44.2
LR-1	Kaijser et al[88]	93	77
LR-2	Nunes et al[51]	97	69
	Kaijser et al[88]	92	75
	Kaijser et al[90]	93.8	81.9
TVS	van Nagell et al[8]	86.4	98.8

ROMA: Risk of ovarian malignancy algorithm; RMI: Risk of malignancy index; OVA1: Vermillion Inc. OVA1^® blood test; LR-1: International ovarian tumor analysis logistic regression model 1; LR-2: International ovarian tumor analysis logistic regression model 2; TVS: Transvaginal ultrasonography.