N Nunes1, G Ambler2, X Foo1, M Widschwendter3, D Jurkovic1. 1. Gynaecological Diagnostic Outpatient Treatment Unit, University College Hospital, London, UK. 2. Department of Statistical Science, University College London, London, UK. 3. Department of Women's Cancer, University College London, Elizabeth Garrett Anderson Institute for Women's Health, London, UK.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether International Ovarian Tumor Analysis (IOTA) logistic regression models LR1 and LR2 developed for the preoperative diagnosis of ovarian cancer could also be used to differentiate between benign and malignant adnexal tumors in the population of women attending gynecology outpatient clinics. METHODS: This was a single-center prospective observational study of consecutive women attending our gynecological diagnostic outpatient unit, recruited between May 2009 and January 2012. All the women were first examined by a Level-II ultrasound operator. In those diagnosed with adnexal tumors, the IOTA-LR1/2 protocol was used to evaluate the masses. The LR1 and LR2 models were then used to assess the risk of malignancy. Subsequently, the women were also examined by a Level-III examiner, who used pattern recognition to differentiate between benign and malignant tumors. Women with an ultrasound diagnosis of malignancy were offered surgery, while asymptomatic women with presumed benign lesions were offered conservative management with a minimum follow-up of 12 months. The initial diagnosis was compared with two reference standards: histological findings and/or a comparative assessment of tumor morphology on follow-up ultrasound scans. All women for whom the tumor classification on follow-up changed from benign to malignant were offered surgery. RESULTS: In the final analysis, 489 women who had either or both of the reference standards were included. Their mean age was 50 years (range, 16-91 years) and 45% were postmenopausal. Of the included women, 342/489 (69.9%) had surgery and 147/489 (30.1%) were managed conservatively. The malignancy rate was 137/489 (28.0%). Overall, sensitivities of LR1 and LR2 for the diagnosis of malignancy were 97.1% (95% CI, 92.7-99.2%) and 94.9% (95% CI, 89.8-97.9%) and specificities were 77.3% (95% CI, 72.5-81.5%) and 76.7% (95% CI, 71.9-81.0%), respectively (P > 0.05). In comparison with pattern recognition (sensitivity 94.2% (95% CI, 88.8-97.4%), specificity 96.3% (95% CI, 93.8-98.0%)), the specificities of the IOTA models were significantly lower (P < 0.0001). A significantly higher number of women would have been offered surgery for suspected cancer if the women had been assessed using the IOTA models instead of pattern recognition (213/489 (43.6%) vs 142/489 (29.0%); P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The IOTA models maintained their high sensitivity when used in an outpatient setting. Specificity was relatively low, which indicates that a significant proportion of the women would have been offered unnecessary surgery for suspected ovarian cancer. These findings show that the IOTA models could be used as a first-stage test to diagnose ovarian cancer in an outpatient setting, but a different second-stage test is required to minimize the number of false-positive findings.
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether International Ovarian Tumor Analysis (IOTA) logistic regression models LR1 and LR2 developed for the preoperative diagnosis of ovarian cancer could also be used to differentiate between benign and malignant adnexal tumors in the population of women attending gynecology outpatient clinics. METHODS: This was a single-center prospective observational study of consecutive women attending our gynecological diagnostic outpatient unit, recruited between May 2009 and January 2012. All the women were first examined by a Level-II ultrasound operator. In those diagnosed with adnexal tumors, the IOTA-LR1/2 protocol was used to evaluate the masses. The LR1 and LR2 models were then used to assess the risk of malignancy. Subsequently, the women were also examined by a Level-III examiner, who used pattern recognition to differentiate between benign and malignant tumors. Women with an ultrasound diagnosis of malignancy were offered surgery, while asymptomatic women with presumed benign lesions were offered conservative management with a minimum follow-up of 12 months. The initial diagnosis was compared with two reference standards: histological findings and/or a comparative assessment of tumor morphology on follow-up ultrasound scans. All women for whom the tumor classification on follow-up changed from benign to malignant were offered surgery. RESULTS: In the final analysis, 489 women who had either or both of the reference standards were included. Their mean age was 50 years (range, 16-91 years) and 45% were postmenopausal. Of the included women, 342/489 (69.9%) had surgery and 147/489 (30.1%) were managed conservatively. The malignancy rate was 137/489 (28.0%). Overall, sensitivities of LR1 and LR2 for the diagnosis of malignancy were 97.1% (95% CI, 92.7-99.2%) and 94.9% (95% CI, 89.8-97.9%) and specificities were 77.3% (95% CI, 72.5-81.5%) and 76.7% (95% CI, 71.9-81.0%), respectively (P > 0.05). In comparison with pattern recognition (sensitivity 94.2% (95% CI, 88.8-97.4%), specificity 96.3% (95% CI, 93.8-98.0%)), the specificities of the IOTA models were significantly lower (P < 0.0001). A significantly higher number of women would have been offered surgery for suspected cancer if the women had been assessed using the IOTA models instead of pattern recognition (213/489 (43.6%) vs 142/489 (29.0%); P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The IOTA models maintained their high sensitivity when used in an outpatient setting. Specificity was relatively low, which indicates that a significant proportion of the women would have been offered unnecessary surgery for suspected ovarian cancer. These findings show that the IOTA models could be used as a first-stage test to diagnose ovarian cancer in an outpatient setting, but a different second-stage test is required to minimize the number of false-positive findings.
Authors: Priyanka Jha; Akshya Gupta; Timothy M Baran; Katherine E Maturen; Krupa Patel-Lippmann; Hanna M Zafar; Aya Kamaya; Neha Antil; Lisa Barroilhet; Elizabeth A Sadowski Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2022-06-01
Authors: Elizabeth A Sadowski; Isabelle Thomassin-Naggara; Andrea Rockall; Katherine E Maturen; Rosemarie Forstner; Priyanka Jha; Stephanie Nougaret; Evan S Siegelman; Caroline Reinhold Journal: Radiology Date: 2022-01-18 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Ben Van Calster; Lil Valentin; Wouter Froyman; Chiara Landolfo; Jolien Ceusters; Antonia C Testa; Laure Wynants; Povilas Sladkevicius; Caroline Van Holsbeke; Ekaterini Domali; Robert Fruscio; Elisabeth Epstein; Dorella Franchi; Marek J Kudla; Valentina Chiappa; Juan L Alcazar; Francesco P G Leone; Francesca Buonomo; Maria Elisabetta Coccia; Stefano Guerriero; Nandita Deo; Ligita Jokubkiene; Luca Savelli; Daniela Fischerová; Artur Czekierdowski; Jeroen Kaijser; An Coosemans; Giovanni Scambia; Ignace Vergote; Tom Bourne; Dirk Timmerman Journal: BMJ Date: 2020-07-30
Authors: Isabelle Thomassin-Naggara; Edouard Poncelet; Aurelie Jalaguier-Coudray; Adalgisa Guerra; Laure S Fournier; Sanja Stojanovic; Ingrid Millet; Nishat Bharwani; Valerie Juhan; Teresa M Cunha; Gabriele Masselli; Corinne Balleyguier; Caroline Malhaire; Nicolas F Perrot; Elizabeth A Sadowski; Marc Bazot; Patrice Taourel; Raphaël Porcher; Emile Darai; Caroline Reinhold; Andrea G Rockall Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2020-01-03
Authors: Justin W Gorski; Charles S Dietrich; Caeli Davis; Lindsay Erol; Hayley Dietrich; Nicholas J Per; Emily Lenk Ferrell; Anthony B McDowell; McKayla J Riggs; Megan L Hutchcraft; Lauren A Baldwin-Branch; Rachel W Miller; Christopher P DeSimone; Holly H Gallion; Frederick R Ueland; John R van Nagell; Edward J Pavlik Journal: Diagnostics (Basel) Date: 2022-01-07