Valentina Chiappa

Dr. Valentina Chiappa


Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

19Years (2008-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
30 July 2020 in BMJ
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
BCBen Van Calster
Ben Van Calster
LVLil Valentin
Lil Valentin
WFWouter Froyman
Wouter Froyman
CLChiara Landolfo
Chiara Landolfo
JCJolien Ceusters
Jolien Ceusters
DTDirk Timmerman
Dirk Timmerman
Objective To evaluate the performance of diagnostic prediction models for ovarian malignancy in all patients with an ovarian mass managed surgically or conservatively. Design Multicentre cohort study. Setting 36 oncology referral centres (tertiary centres with a specific gynaecological oncology unit) or other types of centre. Participants Consecutive adult patients presenting with an adnexal mass between January 2012 and March 2015 and managed by surgery or follow-up. Main outcome measures Overall and centre specific discrimination, calibration, and clinical utility of six prediction models for ovarian malignancy (risk of malignancy index (RMI), logistic regression model 2 (LR2), simple rules, simple rules risk model (SRRisk), assessment of different neoplasias in the adnexa (ADNEX) with or without CA125). ADNEX allows the risk of malignancy to be subdivided into risks of a borderline, stage I primary, stage II-IV primary, or secondary metastatic malignancy. The outcome was based on histology if patients underwent surgery, or on results of clinical and ultrasound follow-up at 12 (±2) months. Multiple imputation was used when outcome based on follow-up was uncertain. Results The primary analysis included 17 centres that met strict quality criteria for surgical and follow-up data (5717 of all 8519 patients). 812 patients (14%) had a mass that was already in follow-up at study recruitment, therefore 4905 patients were included in the statistical analysis. The outcome was benign in 3441 (70%) patients and malignant in 978 (20%). Uncertain outcomes (486, 10%) were most often explained by limited follow-up information. The overall area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was highest for ADNEX with CA125 (0.94, 95% confidence interval 0.92 to 0.96), ADNEX without CA125 (0.94, 0.91 to 0.95) and SRRisk (0.94, 0.91 to 0.95), and lowest for RMI (0.89, 0.85 to 0.92). Calibration varied among centres for all models, however the ADNEX models and SRRisk were the best calibrated. Calibration of the estimated risks for the tumour subtypes was good for ADNEX irrespective of whether or not CA125 was included as a predictor. Overall clinical utility (net benefit) was highest for the ADNEX models and SRRisk, and lowest for RMI. For patients who received at least one follow-up scan (n=1958), overall area under the receiver operating characteristic curve ranged from 0.76 (95% confidence interval 0.66 to 0.84) for RMI to 0.89 (0.81 to 0.94) for ADNEX with CA125. Conclusions Our study found the ADNEX models and SRRisk are the best models to distinguish between benign and malignant masses in all patients presenting with an adnexal mass, including those managed conservatively. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01698632.

12 December 2008 in BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
MSM Signorelli
M Signorelli
GCG Caspani
G Caspani
CBC Bonazzi
C Bonazzi
VCValentina Chiappa
Valentina Chiappa
PPP Perego
P Perego
CMC Mangioni
C Mangioni

1 July 2015 in Gynecologic Oncology
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
ADAntonino Ditto
Antonino Ditto
Fabio MartinelliFabio Martinelli
Fabio Martinelli
GBGiorgio Bogani
Giorgio Bogani
Domenica LorussoDomenica Lorusso
Domenica Lorusso
MCMarialuisa Carcangiu
Marialuisa Carcangiu
FRFrancesco Raspagliesi
Francesco Raspagliesi

21 July 2020 in Journal of Ultrasound
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
VCValentina Chiappa
Valentina Chiappa
GBGiorgio Bogani
Giorgio Bogani
Matteo InterlenghiMatteo Interlenghi
Matteo Interlenghi
CSChristian Salvatore
Christian Salvatore
FBFrancesca Bertolina
Francesca Bertolina
FRFrancesco Raspagliesi
Francesco Raspagliesi

1 January 2019 in Journal of Gynecologic Oncology
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
UMUmberto Leone Roberti Maggiore
Umberto Leone Roberti Maggiore
Fabio MartinelliFabio Martinelli
Fabio Martinelli
GDGiulia Dondi
Giulia Dondi
GBGiorgio Bogani
Giorgio Bogani
VCValentina Chiappa
Valentina Chiappa
FRFrancesco Raspagliesi
Francesco Raspagliesi
Leone Roberti Maggiore U, et al. J Gynecol Oncol. 2018 Aug;30:e57. https://doi.org/10.3802/jgo.2019.30.e57

1 August 2012 in Gynecologic Oncology
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
RFRobert Fruscio
Robert Fruscio
AVAnnalisa Villa
Annalisa Villa
SCStefania Chiari
Stefania Chiari
PVPatrizia Vergani
Patrizia Vergani
LCLorenzo Ceppi
Lorenzo Ceppi
ALAnna Locatelli
Anna Locatelli