Literature DB >> 11778996

Comparison of 'pattern recognition' and logistic regression models for discrimination between benign and malignant pelvic masses: a prospective cross validation.

L Valentin1, B Hagen, S Tingulstad, S Eik-Nes.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To test prospectively the diagnostic performance of two logistic regression models for calculation of individual risk of malignancy in adnexal tumors (the 'Tailor model' and the 'Timmerman model'), and to compare them to that of 'pattern recognition' (subjective evaluation of the gray-scale ultrasound image and color Doppler ultrasound examination).
DESIGN: Consecutive women with a pelvic mass judged clinically to be of adnexal origin underwent preoperative ultrasound examination including color and spectral Doppler examination. The same examination techniques and definitions as those used in the studies in which the logistic regression models had been created were used. The Tailor model was tested in 133 women (35 of whom hada malignancy) and the Timmerman model in 82 women (29 of whom had a malignancy). A subset of 79 women (28 of whom had a malignancy) was used to compare the performance of the Tailor model and the Timmerman model by calculating and comparing the areas under the receiver operating characteristics curves of the two models. Sensitivity and specificity with regard to malignancy were calculated for all three methods.
RESULTS: Pattern recognition performed better than the two logistic regression models (sensitivity around 85%, specificity around 90%). Using a risk of malignancy of > 50% to indicate malignancy (as suggested in the original publications), the sensitivity of the Tailor model was 69% and the specificity 88% (n = 133). The corresponding values for the Timmerman model were 62% and 79% (n = 82). The receiver operating characteristics curves showed the two logistic regression models to have similar diagnostic properties (area under the curve, 0.87 vs. 0.84; P = 0.25; n = 79). The diagnostic performance of the mathematical models was much poorer in this study than in those in which the models had been created.
CONCLUSION: The poor diagnostic performance of the mathematical models can probably be explained by subtle differences in definitions and examination technique and by differences between the original tumor populations and the study population. For mathematical models to be generally useful, they probably need to be created on the basis of a very large number of tumors, and the variables in the model must be unequivocally defined and the examination technique meticulously standardized.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11778996     DOI: 10.1046/j.0960-7692.2001.00500.x

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


  23 in total

Review 1.  Diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up of borderline ovarian tumors.

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

2.  [Ultrasonographic clarification of adnexal findings].

Authors:  H J Prömpeler
Journal:  Radiologe       Date:  2011-07       Impact factor: 0.635

Review 3.  Ultrasound in gynecological cancer: is it time for re-evaluation of its uses?

Authors:  Daniela Fischerova; David Cibula
Journal:  Curr Oncol Rep       Date:  2015-06       Impact factor: 5.075

4.  Ultrasound features of immature ovarian teratomas: Case series and review of literature.

Authors:  S Abdullahi Idle; K Hayes; J A Ross
Journal:  Ultrasound       Date:  2020-02-11

5.  Simple ultrasound rules to distinguish between benign and malignant adnexal masses before surgery: prospective validation by IOTA group.

Authors:  Dirk Timmerman; Lieveke Ameye; Daniela Fischerova; Elisabeth Epstein; Gian Benedetto Melis; Stefano Guerriero; Caroline Van Holsbeke; Luca Savelli; Robert Fruscio; Andrea Alberto Lissoni; Antonia Carla Testa; Joan Veldman; Ignace Vergote; Sabine Van Huffel; Tom Bourne; Lil Valentin
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2010-12-14

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

Review 8.  Assessment of adnexal masses using ultrasound: a practical review.

Authors:  Noam Smorgick; Ron Maymon
Journal:  Int J Womens Health       Date:  2014-09-23

9.  Strategies to diagnose ovarian cancer: new evidence from phase 3 of the multicentre international IOTA study.

Authors:  A Testa; J Kaijser; L Wynants; D Fischerova; C Van Holsbeke; D Franchi; L Savelli; E Epstein; A Czekierdowski; S Guerriero; R Fruscio; F P G Leone; I Vergote; T Bourne; L Valentin; B Van Calster; D Timmerman
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2014-06-17       Impact factor: 7.640

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.