Literature DB >> 23578539

A multicenter prospective external validation of the diagnostic performance of IOTA simple descriptors and rules to characterize ovarian masses.

Ahmad Sayasneh1, Jeroen Kaijser, Jessica Preisler, Susanne Johnson, Catriona Stalder, Richard Husicka, Sharmistha Guha, Osama Naji, Yazan Abdallah, Fateh Raslan, Alexandra Drought, Alison A Smith, Christina Fotopoulou, Sadaf Ghaem-Maghami, Ben Van Calster, Dirk Timmerman, Tom Bourne.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the diagnostic performance of the IOTA (International Ovarian Tumor Analysis group) (clinically oriented three-step strategy for preoperative characterization of ovarian masses when ultrasonography is performed by examiners with different background training and experience.
METHODS: A 27-month prospective multicenter cross-sectional study was performed. 36 level II ultrasound examiners contributed in three UK hospitals. Transvaginal ultrasonography was performed using a standardized approach. Step one uses simple descriptors (SD), step two ultrasound simple rules (SR) and step three subjective assessment of ultrasound images (SA) by examiners. The final outcome was findings at surgery and the histological diagnosis of surgically removed masses.
RESULTS: 1165 women with adnexal masses underwent transvaginal ultrasonography, 301 had surgery. Prevalence of malignancy was 31% (n=92). SD were able to classify 46% of the masses into benign or malignant (step one), with a sensitivity of 93% and specificity of 97%. Applying SD followed by SR to residual unclassified masses by SD enabled 89% of all masses (n=268) to be classified with a sensitivity 95% of and specificity of 95%. SA was then used to evaluate the rest of the masses. Compared to the risk of malignancy index (RMI), the sensitivity and specificity for the three-step (SD+SR+SA) strategy were 93% (95% CI: 86-97%) and 92% (95% CI: 87-95%) vs. 72% (95% CI: 62-80%) and 95% (95% CI: 91-97%) for RMI, respectively.
CONCLUSION: The IOTA three-step strategy shows good test performance on external validation in the hands of ultrasonography examiners with different background training and experience. This performance is considerably better than the RMI.
Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23578539     DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2013.04.003

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Gynecol Oncol        ISSN: 0090-8258            Impact factor:   5.482


  14 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.  EANM guideline on the role of 2-[18F]FDG PET/CT in diagnosis, staging, prognostic value, therapy assessment and restaging of ovarian cancer, endorsed by the American College of Nuclear Medicine (ACNM), the Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging (SNMMI) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

Authors:  Roberto C Delgado Bolton; Nicolas Aide; Patrick M Colletti; Annamaria Ferrero; Diana Paez; Andrea Skanjeti; Francesco Giammarile
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2021-07-03       Impact factor: 9.236

3.  Evaluation of IOTA Simple Ultrasound Rules to Distinguish Benign and Malignant Ovarian Tumours.

Authors:  Sugandha Garg; Amarjit Kaur; Jaswinder Kaur Mohi; Preet Kanwal Sibia; Navkiran Kaur
Journal:  J Clin Diagn Res       Date:  2017-08-01

4.  IOTA Simple Ultrasound Rules for Triage of Adnexal Mass: Experience from South India.

Authors:  Jyothi Shetty; Aruna Saradha; Deeksha Pandey; Rajeshwari Bhat; Sunanda Bharatnur
Journal:  J Obstet Gynaecol India       Date:  2019-05-03

Review 5.  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 6.  Practical guidance for applying the ADNEX model from the IOTA group to discriminate between different subtypes of adnexal tumors.

Authors:  B Van Calster; K Van Hoorde; W Froyman; J Kaijser; L Wynants; C Landolfo; C Anthoulakis; I Vergote; T Bourne; D Timmerman
Journal:  Facts Views Vis Obgyn       Date:  2015

7.  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

8.  Evaluating the risk of ovarian cancer before surgery using the ADNEX model: a multicentre external validation study.

Authors:  A Sayasneh; L Ferrara; B De Cock; S Saso; M Al-Memar; S Johnson; J Kaijser; J Carvalho; R Husicka; A Smith; C Stalder; M C Blanco; G Ettore; B Van Calster; D Timmerman; T Bourne
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2016-08-02       Impact factor: 7.640

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.  Refining Ovarian Cancer Test accuracy Scores (ROCkeTS): protocol for a prospective longitudinal test accuracy study to validate new risk scores in women with symptoms of suspected ovarian cancer.

Authors:  Sudha Sundar; Caroline Rick; Francis Dowling; Pui Au; Kym Snell; Nirmala Rai; Rita Champaneria; Hilary Stobart; Richard Neal; Clare Davenport; Susan Mallett; Andrew Sutton; Sean Kehoe; Dirk Timmerman; Tom Bourne; Ben Van Calster; Aleksandra Gentry-Maharaj; Usha Menon; Jon Deeks
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2016-08-09       Impact factor: 2.692

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.