Patrick Nunes Pereira1,2, Luís Otavio Sarian1, Adriana Yoshida3, Karla Galvão Araújo1, Ana Carolina Baião Silva1, Ricardo Hoelz de Oliveira Barros2, Rodrigo Menezes Jales4, Sophie Derchain1. 1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medical Sciences, State University of Campinas - Unicamp, Campinas, São Paulo, 13083-970, Brazil. 2. Section of Imaging, Sumaré State Hospital, Affiliated to State University of Campinas, Sumaré, São Paulo, Brazil. 3. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medical Sciences, State University of Campinas - Unicamp, Campinas, São Paulo, 13083-970, Brazil. adriana122013@gmail.com. 4. Section of Ultrasonography, Women's Hospital, CAISM, State University of Campinas - Unicamp, Campinas, São Paulo, Brazil.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis (IOTA) simple rules, simple rules risk ultrasound models, alone or in combination with magnetic resonance (MR) score to predict malignancy in women with adnexal masses. METHODS: 171 women with adnexal masses were included from February 2014 to February 2016. 120 women had histopathological diagnosis obtained from surgery or percutaneous biopsy. The other 51 women were submitted to surveillance with ultrasound (US) for at least 1 year. Patients were examined with US and MR. US reports were rendered using IOTA systems. We compared five diagnostic approaches, aimed at diagnosing women with malignant tumors among those with adnexal masses: We calculated the performance and net benefits (decision curve analysis) for five distinct diagnostic approaches: (1) US simple rules (SR), (2) simple rules risk score (SRRisk), (3) US SR followed by subjective assessment (SA) of indeterminate cases, (4) SR followed by MR score for the indeterminate cases, and (5) MR score for all women. RESULTS: The MR score for all patients was the approach that yielded the best-standardized net benefit regardless of the risk threshold. However, referring women with indeterminate masses on SR to MR score yielded the second-best net benefit. CONCLUSION: Although this study leaves no doubt about the superiority of MR score over US-based methods for the discrimination of malignant tumors in women with adnexal masses, restricting the use of MR score only to women with indeterminate masses on US SR is a safe, appropriate way to triage women with adnexal masses.
PURPOSE: To compare the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis (IOTA) simple rules, simple rules risk ultrasound models, alone or in combination with magnetic resonance (MR) score to predict malignancy in women with adnexal masses. METHODS: 171 women with adnexal masses were included from February 2014 to February 2016. 120 women had histopathological diagnosis obtained from surgery or percutaneous biopsy. The other 51 women were submitted to surveillance with ultrasound (US) for at least 1 year. Patients were examined with US and MR. US reports were rendered using IOTA systems. We compared five diagnostic approaches, aimed at diagnosing women with malignant tumors among those with adnexal masses: We calculated the performance and net benefits (decision curve analysis) for five distinct diagnostic approaches: (1) US simple rules (SR), (2) simple rules risk score (SRRisk), (3) US SR followed by subjective assessment (SA) of indeterminate cases, (4) SR followed by MR score for the indeterminate cases, and (5) MR score for all women. RESULTS: The MR score for all patients was the approach that yielded the best-standardized net benefit regardless of the risk threshold. However, referring women with indeterminate masses on SR to MR score yielded the second-best net benefit. CONCLUSION: Although this study leaves no doubt about the superiority of MR score over US-based methods for the discrimination of malignant tumors in women with adnexal masses, restricting the use of MR score only to women with indeterminate masses on US SR is a safe, appropriate way to triage women with adnexal masses.
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: P Sladkevicius; L Jokubkiene; D Timmerman; D Fischerova; C Van Holsbeke; D Franchi; L Savelli; E Epstein; R Fruscio; J Kaijser; A Czekierdowski; S Guerriero; M A Pascual; A C Testa; L Ameye; L Valentin Journal: Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol Date: 2021-02 Impact factor: 7.299