Literature DB >> 10201081

Subjective assessment of adnexal masses with the use of ultrasonography: an analysis of interobserver variability and experience.

D Timmerman1, P Schwärzler, W P Collins, F Claerhout, M Coenen, F Amant, I Vergote, T H Bourne.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to evaluate the subjective assessment of ultrasonographic images for discriminating between malignant and benign adnexal masses. STUDY
DESIGN: The study was prospective. Initially, one ultrasonographer preoperatively assessed 300 consecutive patients with adnexal masses. Subsequently, the recorded transparent photographic prints were independently assessed by five investigators, with different qualifications and level of experience, who were also given a brief clinical history of the patients (i.e. the age, menstrual status, family history of ovarian cancer, previous pelvic surgery and the presenting symptoms). The diagnostic performance of the observers was compared with the histopathology classification of malignant or benign tumors. The end-points were accuracy, interobserver agreement and the possible effect of experience.
RESULTS: The first ultrasonographer and the most experienced investigator both obtained an accuracy of 92%. There was very good agreement between these two investigators in the classification of the adnexal masses (Cohen's kappa 0.85). The less experienced observers obtained a significantly lower accuracy, which varied between 82% and 87%. Their interobserver agreement was moderate to good (Cohen's kappa 0.52 to 0.76).
CONCLUSION: Experienced ultrasonographers using some clinical information and their subjective assessment of ultrasonographic images can differentiate malignant from benign masses in most cases. The accuracy and the level of interobserver agreement are both correlated with experience. About 10% of masses were extremely difficult to classify (only < 50% of assessors were correct).

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1999        PMID: 10201081     DOI: 10.1046/j.1469-0705.1999.13010011.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol        ISSN: 0960-7692            Impact factor:   7.299


  24 in total

1.  Screening for ovarian cancer: imaging challenges and opportunities for improvement.

Authors:  K B Mathieu; D G Bedi; S L Thrower; A Qayyum; R C Bast
Journal:  Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2018-03       Impact factor: 7.299

Review 2.  Diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up of borderline ovarian tumors.

Authors:  Daniela Fischerova; Michal Zikan; Pavel Dundr; David Cibula
Journal:  Oncologist       Date:  2012-09-28

3.  Ultrasound-based logistic regression model LR2 versus magnetic resonance imaging for discriminating between benign and malignant adnexal masses: a prospective study.

Authors:  Kanane Shimada; Koji Matsumoto; Takashi Mimura; Tetsuya Ishikawa; Jiro Munechika; Yoshimitsu Ohgiya; Miki Kushima; Yusuke Hirose; Yuka Asami; Chiaki Iitsuka; Shingo Miyamoto; Mamiko Onuki; Hajime Tsunoda; Ryu Matsuoka; Kiyotake Ichizuka; Akihiko Sekizawa
Journal:  Int J Clin Oncol       Date:  2017-12-13       Impact factor: 3.402

4.  Accuracy of plain films, and the effect of experience, in the assessment of ankle effusions.

Authors:  Michael Karchevsky; Mark E Schweitzer
Journal:  Skeletal Radiol       Date:  2004-09-17       Impact factor: 2.199

5.  Diagnosis and management of adnexal masses in pregnancy.

Authors:  Ibrahim Adamu Yakasai; Lawal Abdullahi Bappa
Journal:  J Surg Tech Case Rep       Date:  2012-07

Review 6.  Ultrasound evaluation of ovarian masses and assessment of the extension of ovarian malignancy.

Authors:  Francesca Moro; Rosanna Esposito; Chiara Landolfo; Wouter Froyman; Dirk Timmerman; Tom Bourne; Giovanni Scambia; Lil Valentin; Antonia Carla Testa
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2021-06-09       Impact factor: 3.629

Review 7.  ESGO/ISUOG/IOTA/ESGE Consensus Statement on pre-operative diagnosis of ovarian tumors.

Authors:  Dirk Timmerman; François Planchamp; Tom Bourne; Chiara Landolfo; Andreas du Bois; Luis Chiva; David Cibula; Nicole Concin; Daniela Fischerova; Wouter Froyman; Guillermo Gallardo Madueño; Birthe Lemley; Annika Loft; Liliana Mereu; Philippe Morice; Denis Querleu; Antonia Carla Testa; Ignace Vergote; Vincent Vandecaveye; Giovanni Scambia; Christina Fotopoulou
Journal:  Int J Gynecol Cancer       Date:  2021-06-10       Impact factor: 3.437

8.  Multicentre external validation of IOTA prediction models and RMI by operators with varied training.

Authors:  A Sayasneh; L Wynants; J Preisler; J Kaijser; S Johnson; C Stalder; R Husicka; Y Abdallah; F Raslan; A Drought; A A Smith; S Ghaem-Maghami; E Epstein; B Van Calster; D Timmerman; T Bourne
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2013-05-14       Impact factor: 7.640

9.  Diagnostic Accuracy of the ADNEX Model for Ovarian Cancer at the 15% Cut-Off Value: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Xiaotong Huang; Ziwei Wang; Meiqin Zhang; Hong Luo
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2021-06-17       Impact factor: 6.244

10.  Comparison of the Diagnostic Performances of Ultrasound-Based Models for Predicting Malignancy in Patients With Adnexal Masses.

Authors:  Le Qian; Qinwen Du; Meijiao Jiang; Fei Yuan; Hui Chen; Weiwei Feng
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2021-06-01       Impact factor: 6.244

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.