Literature DB >> 18925606

Real-time ultrasound vs. evaluation of static images in the preoperative assessment of adnexal masses.

C Van Holsbeke1, J Yazbek, T K Holland, A Daemen, B De Moor, A C Testa, L Valentin, D Jurkovic, D Timmerman.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To determine if the prediction of the malignancy of an adnexal mass using pattern recognition, i.e. subjective evaluation of gray-scale and Doppler ultrasound findings, is as accurate when based on static images as it is when based on a real-time ultrasound examination.
METHODS: The static images of 166 non-consecutive patients with 'difficult' adnexal masses, who all underwent surgery and for whom a histopathological diagnosis was available, were evaluated by three experts in gynecological ultrasound ('image experts'). All ultrasound examinations had been performed and the static images saved by a fourth expert sonologist ('real-time' sonologist). All four sonologists classified the adnexal masses as benign or malignant based on their subjective impression and stated with what degree of confidence their diagnosis was made. The diagnostic performance of the real-time sonologist was compared with that of each of the three image experts and with that of the 'consensus opinion' of the image experts (i.e. the diagnosis suggested by at least two of the latter).
RESULTS: The real-time sonologist correctly predicted the diagnosis with an accuracy of 89% (148/166) vs. 85% (141/166) for the consensus opinion of static images (P = 0.0707). Equivalent values for sensitivity and specificity were 80% (56/70) vs. 83% (58/70) (P = 0.4142) and 96% (92/96) vs. 86% (83/96) (P = 0.0027), respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: The preoperative diagnosis of an adnexal mass made on the basis of a real-time ultrasound examination is more precise than a diagnosis made on the basis of saved static ultrasound images. Evaluation of static images is associated with lower diagnostic specificity. (c) 2008 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18925606     DOI: 10.1002/uog.6214

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


  4 in total

1.  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

2.  Does the radiologist need to rescan the breast lesion to validate the final BI-RADS US assessment made on the static images in the diagnostic setting?

Authors:  Yue Hu; Jingsi Mei; Xiaofang Jiang; Ran Gu; Fengtao Liu; Yaping Yang; Hongli Wang; Shiyu Shen; Haixia Jia; Qiang Liu; Chang Gong
Journal:  Cancer Manag Res       Date:  2019-05-22       Impact factor: 3.989

3.  The evaluation of podiatrists, with knowledge and training in diagnostic musculoskeletal ultrasound, to describe sonographic images of diabetic foot wounds in the United Kingdom and Australia.

Authors:  Charlotte Dando; Georgia Lane; Catherine Bowen; Frances Henshaw
Journal:  J Foot Ankle Res       Date:  2022-01-25       Impact factor: 2.303

4.  Real-time vs static scoring in musculoskeletal ultrasonography in patients with inflammatory hand osteoarthritis.

Authors:  Lotte A van de Stadt; Féline P B Kroon; Frits R Rosendaal; Desirée van der Heijde; Monique Reijnierse; Naghmeh Riyazi; Ragnhild de Slegte; Jendé van Zeben; Cornelia F Allaart; Margreet Kloppenburg; Marion C Kortekaas
Journal:  Rheumatology (Oxford)       Date:  2022-04-18       Impact factor: 7.580

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.