Literature DB >> 10426255

Sonographic prediction of malignancy in adnexal masses using an artificial neural network.

A Tailor1, D Jurkovic, T H Bourne, W P Collins, S Campbell.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To generate a neural network algorithm which computes a probability of malignancy score for pre-operative discrimination between malignant and benign adnexal tumours.
DESIGN: A retrospective analysis of previously collected data. Information from 75% of the study group was used to train an artificial neural network and the remainder was used for validation.
SETTING: The Gynaecological Ultrasound Research Unit at King's College Hospital, London. POPULATION: Sixty-seven women with known adnexal mass who had been examined using transvaginal B-mode ultrasonography and colour Doppler imaging with pulse spectral analysis immediately before surgery. The excised masses were classified histologically as benign (n = 52) or malignant (n = 15), of which three were borderline.
METHODS: The variables that were put into the artificial neural network were: age, menopausal status, maximum tumour diameter, tumour volume, locularity, the presence of papillary projections, the presence of random echogenicity, the presence of analysable blood flow velocity waveforms, the peak systolic velocity, time-averaged maximum velocity, the pulsatility index, and resistance index. Histological classification, categorised as benign or malignant, was the output result.
RESULTS: A variant of the back propagation method was selected to train the network. The overall architecture of the network with the best performance contained an input layer with four variables (age, time-averaged maximum velocity, papillary projection score and maximum tumour diameter), a hidden layer with three units and an output layer with one. The sensitivity and specificity at the optimum diagnostic decision value for the artificial neural network output (0.45) were 100% (95% CI 78.2%-100%) and 98.1% (95% CI 89.5%-100%), respectively. These values were significantly better than those obtained from the independent use of the resistance index, pulsatility index, time-averaged maximum velocity or peak systolic velocity at their optimum decision values (P < 0.01).
CONCLUSION: Artificial neural networks may be used on clinical and ultrasound derived end-points to accurately predict ovarian malignancy. There is a need for a prospective evaluation of this technique using a larger number of patients.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1999        PMID: 10426255     DOI: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.1999.tb08080.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Br J Obstet Gynaecol        ISSN: 0306-5456


  9 in total

1.  Early detection of ovarian cancer.

Authors:  Partha M Das; Robert C Bast
Journal:  Biomark Med       Date:  2008-06       Impact factor: 2.851

2.  Ovarian tumor characterization and classification using ultrasound-a new online paradigm.

Authors:  U Rajendra Acharya; S Vinitha Sree; Luca Saba; Filippo Molinari; Stefano Guerriero; Jasjit S Suri
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2013-06       Impact factor: 4.056

3.  A new computer-aided diagnostic tool for non-invasive characterisation of malignant ovarian masses: results of a multicentre validation study.

Authors:  Olivier Lucidarme; Jean-Paul Akakpo; Seth Granberg; Mario Sideri; Hanoch Levavi; Achim Schneider; Philippe Autier; Dror Nir; Harry Bleiberg
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2010-03-20       Impact factor: 5.315

4.  A machine learning approach applied to gynecological ultrasound to predict progression-free survival in ovarian cancer patients.

Authors:  Francesca Arezzo; Gennaro Cormio; Daniele La Forgia; Carla Mariaflavia Santarsiero; Michele Mongelli; Claudio Lombardi; Gerardo Cazzato; Ettore Cicinelli; Vera Loizzi
Journal:  Arch Gynecol Obstet       Date:  2022-05-09       Impact factor: 2.493

5.  Automated characterisation of ultrasound images of ovarian tumours: the diagnostic accuracy of a support vector machine and image processing with a local binary pattern operator.

Authors:  S Khazendar; A Sayasneh; H Al-Assam; H Du; J Kaijser; L Ferrara; D Timmerman; S Jassim; T Bourne
Journal:  Facts Views Vis Obgyn       Date:  2015

6.  Magnetic Resonance Imaging Findings in Patients with Benign and Malignant Ovarian Masses Versus Pathologic Outcomes.

Authors:  Fariba Behnamfar; Zahra Tashakor; Atoosa Adibi
Journal:  Adv Biomed Res       Date:  2020-10-30

7.  GyneScan: an improved online paradigm for screening of ovarian cancer via tissue characterization.

Authors:  U Rajendra Acharya; S Vinitha Sree; Sanjeev Kulshreshtha; Filippo Molinari; Joel En Wei Koh; Luca Saba; Jasjit S Suri
Journal:  Technol Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2013-12-06

8.  Association between the sonographer's experience and diagnostic performance of IOTA simple rules.

Authors:  Chun-Ping Ning; Xiaoli Ji; Hong-Qiao Wang; Xiao-Ying Du; Hai-Tao Niu; Shi-Bao Fang
Journal:  World J Surg Oncol       Date:  2018-09-05       Impact factor: 2.754

9.  A decision support system based on radiomics and machine learning to predict the risk of malignancy of ovarian masses from transvaginal ultrasonography and serum CA-125.

Authors:  Valentina Chiappa; Matteo Interlenghi; Giorgio Bogani; Christian Salvatore; Francesca Bertolina; Giuseppe Sarpietro; Mauro Signorelli; Dominique Ronzulli; Isabella Castiglioni; Francesco Raspagliesi
Journal:  Eur Radiol Exp       Date:  2021-07-26
  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.