Literature DB >> 31770022

Comparison of International Ovarian Tumor Analysis Simple Rules to Society of Radiologists in Ultrasound Guidelines for Detection of Malignancy in Adnexal Cysts.

Krupa K Patel-Lippmann1, Elizabeth A Sadowski2,3, Jessica B Robbins2, Viktoriya Paroder4, Lisa Barroilhet3, Elizabeth Maddox2, Timothy McMahon5, Emmanuel Sampene6, Ashish P Wasnik7, Alexander D Blaty8, Katherine E Maturen7,9.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis (IOTA) simple rules and the Society of Radiologists in Ultrasound (SRU) guidelines for detecting ovarian malignancy in a general population of women presenting to radiology departments with adnexal cystic lesions. MATERIALS AND METHODS. A retrospective multicenter study of ultrasound-detected adnexal cystic lesions with appropriate follow-up was conducted. Lesions were classified into benign, indeterminate, or malignant categories according to criteria based on the IOTA simple rules and the SRU guidelines. The prevalence of nonneoplastic cysts, neoplasms, and malignant tumors was calculated. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and accuracy were calculated, and ROC analysis for the diagnosis of malignancy was performed. RESULTS. A total of 697 women with 764 cystic lesions were included; 85.2% (651/764) of the lesions were nonneoplastic, 12.2% (93/764) were benign neoplasms, and 2.6% (20/764) were malignant neoplasms. Nearly all malignancies were classified into indeterminate and malignant categories. The prevalence of malignancy in the indeterminate category was 4.8% (7/145) (SRU) to 10.7% (7/65) (IOTA) and in the malignant category was 18.1% (13/72) (SRU) to 34.3% (12/35) (IOTA). Only one malignancy was misclassified as benign by the IOTA simple rules. The sensitivity of the IOTA simple rules for malignancy was 90.0%; specificity, 96.5%; PPV, 29.0%; NPV, 99.8%; and accuracy, 96.4%. The corresponding values for the SRU guidelines were 100%, 89.6%, 14.9%, 100%, and 89.8%. In ROC analysis, the IOTA simple rules were slightly more accurate than the SRU guidelines (AUC, 0.9805 versus 0.9713; p = 0.0003). CONCLUSION. Both imaging characterization methods were sensitive for identifying ovarian malignancies, but the PPV was low among women presenting to radiology departments, and the indeterminate classification harbored one-third of the total malignancies. Exploration of varied clinical settings and inclusion of secondary tests may help to refine these systems.

Entities:  

Keywords:  IOTA; International Ovarian Tumor Analysis; SRU; Society of Radiologists in Ultrasound; adnexal cyst; ultrasound

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31770022     DOI: 10.2214/AJR.18.20630

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol        ISSN: 0361-803X            Impact factor:   3.959


  11 in total

1.  Diagnostic accuracy and inter-observer reliability of the O-RADS scoring system among staff radiologists in a North American academic clinical setting.

Authors:  Yeli Pi; Mitchell P Wilson; Prayash Katlariwala; Medica Sam; Thomas Ackerman; Lee Paskar; Vimal Patel; Gavin Low
Journal:  Abdom Radiol (NY)       Date:  2021-06-29

2.  Borderline ovarian tumor in pregnancy: can surgery wait? A case series.

Authors:  Ailyn M Vidal Urbinati; Anna D Iacobone; Raffaela C Di Pace; Ida Pino; Maria R Pittelli; Maria E Guerrieri; Eleonora P Preti; Dorella Franchi
Journal:  Arch Gynecol Obstet       Date:  2021-05-05       Impact factor: 2.344

3.  A machine learning approach applied to gynecological ultrasound to predict progression-free survival in ovarian cancer patients.

Authors:  Francesca Arezzo; Gennaro Cormio; Daniele La Forgia; Carla Mariaflavia Santarsiero; Michele Mongelli; Claudio Lombardi; Gerardo Cazzato; Ettore Cicinelli; Vera Loizzi
Journal:  Arch Gynecol Obstet       Date:  2022-05-09       Impact factor: 2.493

4.  Management of the Adnexal Mass: Considerations for the Family Medicine Physician.

Authors:  Brian Bullock; Lisa Larkin; Lauren Turker; Kate Stampler
Journal:  Front Med (Lausanne)       Date:  2022-07-05

5.  Diagnostic Performance of the Ovarian-Adnexal Reporting and Data System (O-RADS) Ultrasound Risk Score in Women in the United States.

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

Review 6.  O-RADS MRI Risk Stratification System: Guide for Assessing Adnexal Lesions from the ACR O-RADS Committee.

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

Review 7.  Ovary: MRI characterisation and O-RADS MRI.

Authors:  Elizabeth A Sadowski; Katherine E Maturen; Andrea Rockall; Caroline Reinhold; Helen Addley; Priyanka Jha; Nishat Bharwani; Isabelle Thomassin-Naggara
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2021-04-30       Impact factor: 3.629

8.  Prospective revalidation of IOTA "two-step", "alternative two-step" and "three-step" strategies for characterization of adnexal masses - An Indian study focussing the radiology context.

Authors:  Shabnam Bhandari Grover; Sayantan Patra; Hemal Grover; Pratima Mittal; Geetika Khanna
Journal:  Indian J Radiol Imaging       Date:  2020-10-15

9.  Interobserver agreement between eight observers using IOTA simple rules and O-RADS lexicon descriptors for adnexal masses.

Authors:  Neha Antil; Preethi R Raghu; Luyao Shen; Thodsawit Tiyarattanachai; Edwina M Chang; Craig W K Ferguson; Amanzo A Ho; Amelie M Lutz; Aladin J Mariano; L Nayeli Morimoto; Aya Kamaya
Journal:  Abdom Radiol (NY)       Date:  2022-06-28

Review 10.  Radiomics and radiogenomics in ovarian cancer: a literature review.

Authors:  S Nougaret; Cathal McCague; Hichem Tibermacine; Hebert Alberto Vargas; Stefania Rizzo; E Sala
Journal:  Abdom Radiol (NY)       Date:  2020-11-11
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.