Literature DB >> 29236181

Ultrasound-based logistic regression model LR2 versus magnetic resonance imaging for discriminating between benign and malignant adnexal masses: a prospective study.

Kanane Shimada1,2, Koji Matsumoto3, Takashi Mimura1, Tetsuya Ishikawa1, Jiro Munechika4, Yoshimitsu Ohgiya4, Miki Kushima5, Yusuke Hirose1, Yuka Asami1, Chiaki Iitsuka1, Shingo Miyamoto1, Mamiko Onuki1, Hajime Tsunoda2, Ryu Matsuoka1, Kiyotake Ichizuka1, Akihiko Sekizawa1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The diagnostic performances of the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis (IOTA) ultrasound-based logistic regression model (LR2) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in discriminating between benign and malignant adnexal masses have not been directly compared in a single study.
METHODS: Using the IOTA LR2 model and subjective interpretation of MRI findings by experienced radiologists, 265 consecutive patients with adnexal masses were preoperatively evaluated in two hospitals between February 2014 and December 2015. Definitive histological diagnosis of excised tissues was used as a gold standard.
RESULTS: From the 265 study subjects, 54 (20.4%) tumors were histologically diagnosed as malignant (including 11 borderline and 3 metastatic tumors). Preoperative diagnoses of malignant tumors showed 91.7% total agreement between IOTA LR2 and MRI, with a kappa value of 0.77 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.68-0.86]. Sensitivity of IOTA LR2 (0.94, 95% CI, 0.85-0.98) for predicting malignant tumors was similar to that of MRI (0.96, 95% CI, 0.87-0.99; P = 0.99), whereas specificity of IOTA LR2 (0.98, 95% CI, 0.95-0.99) was significantly higher than that of MRI (0.91, 95% CI, 0.87-0.95; P = 0.002). Combined IOTA LR2 and MRI results gave the greatest sensitivity (1.00, 95% CI, 0.93-1.00) and had similar specificity (0.91, 95% CI, 0.86-0.94) to MRI.
CONCLUSIONS: The IOTA LR2 model had a similar sensitivity to MRI for discriminating between benign and malignant tumors and a higher specificity compared with MRI. Our findings suggest that the IOTA LR2 model, either alone or in conjunction with MRI, should be included in preoperative evaluation of adnexal masses.

Entities:  

Keywords:  IOTA; Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI); Ovarian tumor; Ultrasound

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 29236181     DOI: 10.1007/s10147-017-1222-y

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Clin Oncol        ISSN: 1341-9625            Impact factor:   3.402


  13 in total

1.  Subjective assessment of adnexal masses with the use of ultrasonography: an analysis of interobserver variability and experience.

Authors:  D Timmerman; P Schwärzler; W P Collins; F Claerhout; M Coenen; F Amant; I Vergote; T H Bourne
Journal:  Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol       Date:  1999-01       Impact factor: 7.299

2.  Intra- and interobserver agreement with regard to describing adnexal masses using International Ovarian Tumor Analysis terminology: reproducibility study involving seven observers.

Authors:  L Zannoni; L Savelli; L Jokubkiene; A Di Legge; G Condous; A C Testa; P Sladkevicius; L Valentin
Journal:  Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2014-06-01       Impact factor: 7.299

Review 3.  Subjective assessment versus ultrasound models to diagnose ovarian cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  E M J Meys; J Kaijser; R F P M Kruitwagen; B F M Slangen; B Van Calster; B Aertgeerts; J Y Verbakel; D Timmerman; T Van Gorp
Journal:  Eur J Cancer       Date:  2016-02-27       Impact factor: 9.162

4.  Imaging techniques for the pre-surgical diagnosis of adnexal tumours.

Authors:  Jeroen Kaijser; Vincent Vandecaveye; Christophe M Deroose; Andrea Rockall; Isabelle Thomassin-Naggara; Tom Bourne; Dirk Timmerman
Journal:  Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol       Date:  2014-04-13       Impact factor: 5.237

5.  Interobserver agreement in describing the ultrasound appearance of adnexal masses and in calculating the risk of malignancy using logistic regression models.

Authors:  Povilas Sladkevicius; Lil Valentin
Journal:  Clin Cancer Res       Date:  2014-11-25       Impact factor: 12.531

6.  Logistic regression model to distinguish between the benign and malignant adnexal mass before surgery: a multicenter study by the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis Group.

Authors:  Dirk Timmerman; Antonia C Testa; Tom Bourne; Enrico Ferrazzi; Lieveke Ameye; Maja L Konstantinovic; Ben Van Calster; William P Collins; Ignace Vergote; Sabine Van Huffel; Lil Valentin
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2005-12-01       Impact factor: 44.544

7.  Adnexal masses difficult to classify as benign or malignant using subjective assessment of gray-scale and Doppler ultrasound findings: logistic regression models do not help.

Authors:  L Valentin; L Ameye; L Savelli; R Fruscio; F P G Leone; A Czekierdowski; A A Lissoni; D Fischerova; S Guerriero; C Van Holsbeke; S Van Huffel; D Timmerman
Journal:  Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2011-09-13       Impact factor: 7.299

8.  Malignant or borderline mucinous cystic neoplasms have a larger number of loculi than mucinous cystadenoma: a retrospective study with MR.

Authors:  Yoshikazu Okamoto; Yumiko O Tanaka; Hajime Tsunoda; Hiroyuki Yoshikawa; Manabu Minami
Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2007-07       Impact factor: 4.813

9.  ESUR guidelines for MR imaging of the sonographically indeterminate adnexal mass: an algorithmic approach.

Authors:  John A Spencer; Rosmarie Forstner; Teresa M Cunha; Karen Kinkel
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2010-01       Impact factor: 5.315

10.  A comparison between an ultrasound based prediction model (LR2) and the risk of ovarian malignancy algorithm (ROMA) to assess the risk of malignancy in women with an adnexal mass.

Authors:  Jeroen Kaijser; Toon Van Gorp; Kirsten Van Hoorde; Caroline Van Holsbeke; Ahmad Sayasneh; Ignace Vergote; Tom Bourne; Dirk Timmerman; Ben Van Calster
Journal:  Gynecol Oncol       Date:  2013-01-27       Impact factor: 5.482

View more
  4 in total

1.  Systematic review and meta-analysis of imaging differential diagnosis of benign and malignant ovarian tumors.

Authors:  Wen-Huan Wang; Chang-Bao Zheng; Jin-Niao Gao; Shang-Shang Ren; Guo-Yan Nie; Zhi-Qun Li
Journal:  Gland Surg       Date:  2022-02

2.  Magnetic Resonance Imaging Findings in Patients with Benign and Malignant Ovarian Masses Versus Pathologic Outcomes.

Authors:  Fariba Behnamfar; Zahra Tashakor; Atoosa Adibi
Journal:  Adv Biomed Res       Date:  2020-10-30

3.  Diagnostic Value of Two-Dimensional Transvaginal Ultrasound Combined with Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound in Ovarian Cancer.

Authors:  Rong Hu; Gulina Shahai; Hui Liu; Yuling Feng; Hong Xiang
Journal:  Front Surg       Date:  2022-05-27

Review 4.  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

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.