Literature DB >> 10586480

Prospective cross-validation of Doppler ultrasound examination and gray-scale ultrasound imaging for discrimination of benign and malignant pelvic masses.

L Valentin1.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To cross-validate, prospectively, the diagnostic performance of established ultrasound methods for discrimination of benign and malignant pelvic masses.
METHODS: A total of 173 consecutive women with a pelvic mass judged clinically to be of adnexal origin underwent preoperative ultrasound examination including color and spectral Doppler techniques. A total of 149 tumors were benign, and 24 were malignant. The sensitivity and false-positive rate with regard to malignancy were calculated for the following methods, using cut-off values recommended in previous publications: Lerner score; ultrasound morphology, i.e. tumors without solid components being classified as benign and tumors with solid components as malignant; tumor color score; pulsatility index; resistance index; time-averaged maximum velocity; peak systolic velocity; the combined use of ultrasound morphology and tumor color score and the combined use of ultrasound morphology and peak systolic velocity. Sensitivity and false-positive rate were also calculated for subjective evaluation of the gray-scale ultrasound image and for subjective evaluation of the gray-scale ultrasound image supplemented with subjective evaluation of color Doppler ultrasound examination. The confidence with which the diagnosis was made, based on subjective evaluation, was rated on a visual analog scale.
RESULTS: Subjective evaluation of the gray-scale ultrasound image was by far the best method for distinguishing benign from malignant tumors (sensitivity 88%, false-positive rate 4%), followed in descending order by subjective evaluation of the gray-scale ultrasound image supplemented with color Doppler examination, the Lerner score and the time-averaged maximum velocity. Adding Doppler examination to subjective evaluation of the gray-scale image did not increase the number of correct diagnoses, but it increased the confidence with which a correct diagnosis was made in 14% of tumors. In 11 tumors (6% of the series as a whole), the addition of Doppler examination changed the diagnosis based on subjective evaluation of the gray-scale ultrasound image from an incorrect (n = 1) or uncertain (n = 10) diagnosis to a correct and confident diagnosis.
CONCLUSION: In experienced hands, subjective evaluation of the gray-scale ultrasound image is the best ultrasound method for discriminating between benign and malignant adnexal masses. The main advantage of adding Doppler examination to subjective evaluation of the gray-scale image is an increase in the confidence with which a correct diagnosis is made.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1999        PMID: 10586480     DOI: 10.1046/j.1469-0705.1999.14040273.x

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


  12 in total

1.  Parametric mapping of contrasted ovarian transvaginal sonography.

Authors:  Katrina Korhonen; Ryan Moore; Andrej Lyshchik; Arthur C Fleischer
Journal:  Ultrasound Q       Date:  2015-06       Impact factor: 1.657

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.  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.  Diagnostic value of contrast-enhanced ultrasonography in the characterization of ovarian tumors().

Authors:  L M Sconfienza; N Perrone; A Delnevo; F Lacelli; C Murolo; N Gandolfo; G Serafini
Journal:  J Ultrasound       Date:  2009-10-13

5.  Risk of malignancy index is not sensitive in detecting non-epithelial ovarian cancer and borderline ovarian tumor.

Authors:  Onur Meray; Ilgın Türkçüoğlu; Mehmet Mutlu Meydanlı; Ayşe Kafkaslı
Journal:  J Turk Ger Gynecol Assoc       Date:  2010-03-01

Review 6.  Ultrasonography of ovarian masses using a pattern recognition approach.

Authors:  Sung Il Jung
Journal:  Ultrasonography       Date:  2015-02-07

7.  Imaging in gynaecology: How good are we in identifying endometriomas?

Authors:  C Van Holsbeke; B Van Calster; S Guerriero; L Savelli; F Leone; D Fischerova; A Czekierdowski; R Fruscio; J Veldman; G Van de Putte; A C Testa; T Bourne; L Valentin; D Timmerman
Journal:  Facts Views Vis Obgyn       Date:  2009

Review 8.  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

9.  Contrast-enhanced ultrasound in ovarian tumors - diagnostic parameters: method presentation and initial experience.

Authors:  Anita-Roxana Maxim; Radu Badea; Atilla Tamas; Alexandru Traila
Journal:  Clujul Med       Date:  2013-02-04

10.  Quality assurance and its impact on ovarian visualization rates in the multicenter United Kingdom Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening (UKCTOCS).

Authors:  A Sharma; M Burnell; A Gentry-Maharaj; S Campbell; N N Amso; M W Seif; G Fletcher; C Brunell; G Turner; R Rangar; A Ryan; I Jacobs; U Menon
Journal:  Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2016-02       Impact factor: 7.299

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.