Literature DB >> 22511559

Clinically oriented three-step strategy for assessment of adnexal pathology.

L Ameye1, D Timmerman, L Valentin, D Paladini, J Zhang, C Van Holsbeke, A A Lissoni, L Savelli, J Veldman, A C Testa, F Amant, S Van Huffel, T Bourne.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To determine the diagnostic performance of ultrasound-based simple rules, risk of malignancy index (RMI), two logistic regression models (LR1 and LR2) and real-time subjective assessment by experienced ultrasound examiners following the exclusion of masses likely to be judged as easy and 'instant' to diagnose by an ultrasound examiner, and to develop a new strategy for the assessment of adnexal pathology based on this.
METHODS: 3511 patients with at least one persistent adnexal mass preoperatively underwent transvaginal ultrasonography to assess tumor morphology and vascularity. They were included in two consecutive prospective studies by the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis (IOTA) group: Phase 1 (1999-2005), development of the simple rules and logistic regression models LR1 and LR2, and Phase 2, a validation study (2005-2007).
RESULTS: Almost half of the cases (43%) were identified as 'instant' to diagnose on the basis of descriptors applied to the database. To assess diagnostic performance in the more difficult 'non-instant' masses, we used only Phase 2 data (n = 1036). The sensitivity of LR2 was 88%, of RMI it was 41% and of subjective assessment it was 87%. The specificity of LR2 was 67%, of RMI it was 90% and of subjective assessment it was 86%. The simple rules yielded a conclusive result in almost 2/3 of the masses, where they resulted in sensitivity and specificity similar to those of real-time subjective assessment by experienced ultrasound examiners: sensitivity 89 vs 89% (P = 0.76), specificity 91 vs 91% (P = 0.65). When a three-step strategy was applied with easy 'instant' diagnoses as Step 1, simple rules where conclusive as Step 2 and subjective assessment by an experienced ultrasound examiner in the remaining masses as Step 3, we obtained a sensitivity of 92% and specificity of 92% compared with sensitivity 90% (P = 0.03) and specificity 93% (P = 0.44) when using real-time subjective assessment by experts in all tumors.
CONCLUSION: A diagnostic strategy using simple descriptors and ultrasound rules when applied to the variables contained in the IOTA database obtains results that are at least as good as those obtained by subjective assessment of a mass by an expert.
Copyright © 2012 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22511559     DOI: 10.1002/uog.11177

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


  12 in total

Review 1.  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

2.  Efficacy of the echo pattern classification of ovarian tumors 2000 in conjunction with transvaginal ultrasonography for diagnosis of ovarian masses.

Authors:  Atsushi Tajima; Chikako Suzuki; Iwaho Kikuchi; Hanako Kasahara; Akari Koizumi; Michio Nojima; Koyo Yoshida
Journal:  J Med Ultrason (2001)       Date:  2015-12-10       Impact factor: 1.314

Review 3.  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

4.  Towards an evidence-based approach for diagnosis and management of adnexal masses: findings of the International Ovarian Tumour Analysis (IOTA) studies.

Authors:  J Kaijser
Journal:  Facts Views Vis Obgyn       Date:  2015

5.  Investigating the performance and cost-effectiveness of the simple ultrasound-based rules compared to the risk of malignancy index in the diagnosis of ovarian cancer (SUBSONiC-study): protocol of a prospective multicenter cohort study in the Netherlands.

Authors:  Evelyne M J Meys; Iris J G Rutten; Roy F P M Kruitwagen; Brigitte F Slangen; Martin G M Bergmans; Helen J M M Mertens; Ernst Nolting; Dieuwke Boskamp; Regina G H Beets-Tan; Toon van Gorp
Journal:  BMC Cancer       Date:  2015-06-26       Impact factor: 4.430

Review 6.  The characteristic ultrasound features of specific types of ovarian pathology (review).

Authors:  Ahmad Sayasneh; Christine Ekechi; Laura Ferrara; Jeroen Kaijser; Catriona Stalder; Shyamaly Sur; Dirk Timmerman; Tom Bourne
Journal:  Int J Oncol       Date:  2014-11-18       Impact factor: 5.650

7.  Adenomyosis in infertile women: prevalence and the role of 3D ultrasound as a marker of severity of the disease.

Authors:  J M Puente; A Fabris; J Patel; A Patel; M Cerrillo; A Requena; J A Garcia-Velasco
Journal:  Reprod Biol Endocrinol       Date:  2016-09-20       Impact factor: 5.211

8.  ESUR recommendations for MR imaging of the sonographically indeterminate adnexal mass: an update.

Authors:  Rosemarie Forstner; Isabelle Thomassin-Naggara; Teresa Margarida Cunha; Karen Kinkel; Gabriele Masselli; Rahel Kubik-Huch; John A Spencer; Andrea Rockall
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2016-10-21       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 9.  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

10.  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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.