Research Article

Cost-analysis comparison of clinical risk assessment with and without ROMA for the management of women with pelvic masses

Kaylee A Underkofler, Alexandra J Morell, Rianne Esquivel, Francesca I DeSimone, M Craig Miller and Richard G Moore*

Published: 17 August, 2022 | Volume 5 - Issue 3 | Pages: 080-089

Objective: Pelvic masses can be classified as low risk (likely benign) and high risk (likely malignant) based on an initial clinical risk assessment, which involves a detailed history, physical exam, basic laboratory tests, and imaging. In recent years, the Risk of Ovarian Malignancy Algorithm (ROMA), which combines CA125, HE4 and menopausal status, has emerged as a powerful tool in the classification of pelvic masses and triage of patients to either a generalist gynecologist or a gynecologic oncologist for management. The objective of this study was to evaluate whether the use of ROMA, alone or in combination with Initial Clinical Risk Assessment (ICRA), provides cost savings compared to triage based on ICRA alone.
Methods: A health-economic decision model was developed to assess clinical and cost differences associated with three different clinical pathways of risk assessment for a pelvic mass: ICRA alone, ROMA alone, or ICRA + ROMA in combination. Using previously reported accuracy rates and patient characteristics from a prospective, multicenter, blinded clinical trial, total healthcare costs were modeled for each clinical pathway using the Medicare 2020 reimbursement rates.
Results: A total of 461 patients with pelvic masses were included with 10.4% ultimately diagnosed with epithelial ovarian cancer. Total healthcare costs for patients with benign disease, EOC, or low malignant potential tumors (LMP) (n = 441) triaged using ROMA alone were 3.3% lower than when triaged using ICRA alone. While lab costs increased 55% using ROMA, the use of ROMA alone resulted in a 4% decrease in laparoscopy costs and a 3.1% decrease in laparotomy costs compared with ICRA alone. Similarly, total costs associated with a combination of ICRA + ROMA were 3.9% lower than total costs associated with ICRA alone. The model also predicted a 63% reduction in repeat surgeries resulting from false negative ICRA when using ROMA to triage patients.
Conclusion: Triage of women with pelvic masses using the more sensitive ROMA score lowers overall healthcare costs compared to ICRA alone. With fewer false negative results than ICRA alone, the ROMA score improves initial detection of malignancy and reduces second surgical treatments in women with pelvic masses.

Read Full Article HTML DOI: 10.29328/journal.cjog.1001112 Cite this Article Read Full Article PDF


ROMA; Initial clinical risk assessment; Healthcare costs; Pelvic masses; HE4; CA125; Imaging


  1. Mariotto AB, Yabroff KR, Shao Y, Feuer EJ, Brown ML. Projections of the cost of cancer care in the United States: 2010-2020. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2011 Jan 19;103(2):117-28. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djq495. Epub 2011 Jan 12. Erratum in: J Natl Cancer Inst. 2011 Apr 20;103(8):699. PMID: 21228314; PMCID: PMC3107566.
  2. Mariotto AB, Enewold L, Zhao J, Zeruto CA, Yabroff KR. Medical Care Costs Associated with Cancer Survivorship in the United States. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2020 Jul;29(7):1304-1312. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-19-1534. Epub 2020 Jun 10. PMID: 32522832.
  3. Rauh-Hain JA, Hidrue MK, Gaccione P, Melamed A, Meyer LA, Keating NL, Giordano SH, Rice LW, Birrer MJ, Del Carmen MG. Variation in resource utilization associated with the surgical management of ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2019 Mar;152(3):587-593. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2018.12.013. Epub 2018 Dec 19. PMID: 30579568; PMCID: PMC6420848.
  4. Angioli R, Capriglione S, Aloisi A, Miranda A, de Cicco Nardone C, Terranova C, Adrower R, Plotti F. Economic Impact Among Family Caregivers of Patients With Advanced Ovarian Cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2015 Oct;25(8):1541-6. doi: 10.1097/IGC.0000000000000512. PMID: 26270119.
  5. Urban RR, He H, Alfonso-Cristancho R, Hardesty MM, Goff BA. The Cost of Initial Care for Medicare Patients With Advanced Ovarian Cancer. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2016 Apr;14(4):429-37. doi: 10.6004/jnccn.2016.0049. PMID: 27059191.
  6. Kwon JS. Cost-effectiveness of Ovarian Cancer Prevention Strategies. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2017 Dec;60(4):780-788. doi: 10.1097/GRF.0000000000000317. PMID: 28957951.
  7. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists’ Committee on Practice Bulletins—Gynecology. Practice Bulletin No. 174: Evaluation and Management of Adnexal Masses. Obstet Gynecol. 2016 Nov;128(5):e210-e226. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000001768. PMID: 27776072.
  8. Moore RG, McMeekin DS, Brown AK, DiSilvestro P, Miller MC, Allard WJ, Gajewski W, Kurman R, Bast RC Jr, Skates SJ. A novel multiple marker bioassay utilizing HE4 and CA125 for the prediction of ovarian cancer in patients with a pelvic mass. Gynecol Oncol. 2009 Jan;112(1):40-6. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2008.08.031. Epub 2008 Oct 12. PMID: 18851871; PMCID: PMC3594094.
  9. Nowak M, Janas Ł, Stachowiak G, Stetkiewicz T, Wilczyński JR. Current clinical application of serum biomarkers to detect ovarian cancer. Prz Menopauzalny. 2015 Dec;14(4):254-9. doi: 10.5114/pm.2015.55887. Epub 2015 Nov 27. PMID: 26848298; PMCID: PMC4733894.
  10. Moore RG, Miller MC, Disilvestro P, Landrum LM, Gajewski W, Ball JJ, Skates SJ. Evaluation of the diagnostic accuracy of the risk of ovarian malignancy algorithm in women with a pelvic mass. Obstet Gynecol. 2011 Aug;118(2 Pt 1):280-288. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e318224fce2. PMID: 21775843; PMCID: PMC3594110.
  11. Moore RG, Hawkins DM, Miller MC, Landrum LM, Gajewski W, Ball JJ, Allard WJ, Skates SJ. Combining clinical assessment and the Risk of Ovarian Malignancy Algorithm for the prediction of ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2014 Dec;135(3):547-51. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2014.10.017. Epub 2014 Oct 23. PMID: 25449569.
  12. Rim SH, Hirsch S, Thomas CC, Brewster WR, Cooney D, Thompson TD, Stewart SL. Gynecologic oncologists involvement on ovarian cancer standard of care receipt and survival. World J Obstet Gynecol. 2016;5(2):187-196. doi: 10.5317/wjog.v5.i2.187. Epub 2016 May 10. PMID: 29520338; PMCID: PMC5839163.
  13. Stewart SL, Cooney D, Hirsch S, Westervelt L, Richards TB, Rim SH, Thomas CC. The Effect of Gynecologic Oncologist Availability on Ovarian Cancer Mortality. World J Obstet Gynecol. 2014 May;3(2):71-77. doi: 10.5317/wjog.v3.i2.71. Epub 2014 May 10. PMID: 26478860; PMCID: PMC4605894.
  14. Chua KJC, Patel RD, Trivedi R, Greenberg P, Beiter K, Magliaro T, Patel U, Varughese J. Accuracy in Referrals to Gynecologic Oncologists Based on Clinical Presentation for Ovarian Mass. Diagnostics (Basel). 2020 Feb 16;10(2):106. doi: 10.3390/diagnostics10020106. PMID: 32079078; PMCID: PMC7168930.
  15. Minig L, Padilla-Iserte P, Zorrero C. The Relevance of Gynecologic Oncologists to Provide High-Quality of Care to Women with Gynecological Cancer. Front Oncol. 2016 Jan 14;5:308. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2015.00308. PMID: 26835417; PMCID: PMC4712269.
  16. S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA). Ovarian Cancer Screening Tests: Safety Communication - FDA Recommends Against Use. Published 2016. Accessed December 4, 2021. https://wayback.archive it.org/7993/20180126093611/https://www.fda.gov/Safety/MedWatch/SafetyInformation/SafetyAlertsforHumanMedicalProducts/ucm519540.htm


Figure 1

Figure 1

Figure 1

Figure 2

Figure 1

Figure 3

Similar Articles

Recently Viewed

Read More

Most Viewed

Read More

Help ?