Literature DB >> 9339526

Transvaginal ultrasonographic characterization of ovarian masses: comparison of five scoring systems in a multicenter study.

E Ferrazzi1, G Zanetta, D Dordoni, N Berlanda, R Mezzopane, A A Lissoni, G Lissoni.   

Abstract

The aim of this work was to test and compare the accuracy of five different morphological scoring systems to identify malignant ovarian masses in a prospective multicenter study. Four of the systems had previously been reported by Granberg, Sassone, De Priest and Lerner and the fifth is newly developed. A total of 330 ovarian neoplasms were collected in three different centers, which adopted the same diagnostic procedures. Of these, 261 masses were benign (mean diameter 50 +/- 26 mm) and 69 were malignant (mean diameter 69 +/- 33 mm) (prevalence 21%). The area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve for the multicenter score was 0.84. This was significantly better than the areas of the other four scores which ranged from 0.72 to 0.75. The cut-off levels derived from the five ROC curves achieved a sensitivity that ranged from 74% (Sassone score) to 88% (De Priest score > or = 5), and a specificity from 40% (De Priest) to 67% (multicenter); the highest positive predictive value was 41% (multicenter). With a cut-off level of 9, the accuracy of the multicenter score was significantly better than the scores of Granberg and De Priest (McNemar's test p < 0.0001). Similar results were obtained in 207 ovarian masses of < or = 5 cm in mean diameter, and when 19 borderline and 11 stage 1 cancers only were considered. For the clinical purposes of a screening test we also checked a possible cut-off level of > or = 8, which increased the sensitivity to 93% with a drop of specificity to 56%. With the use of the same criteria for the scores of the different authors, the following values were obtained for sensitivity: 96%, 81%, 93% and 90%; and for specificity: 23%, 56%, 28% and 49%. The multicenter score performed well at distinguishing malignant from benign lesions, and was better than the other four traditional scores, for both large and small masses. This was mainly due to the introduction of two criteria that allowed correction for typical dermoids and endohemorrhagic corpora lutea. A completely reliable differentiation of benign from malignant masses cannot be obtained by sonographic imaging alone.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1997        PMID: 9339526     DOI: 10.1046/j.1469-0705.1997.10030192.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol        ISSN: 0960-7692            Impact factor:   7.299


  9 in total

1.  Ovarian cancer screening and early detection in the general population.

Authors:  Jose A Rauh-Hain; Thomas C Krivak; Marcela G Del Carmen; Alexander B Olawaiye
Journal:  Rev Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2011

2.  Management of a suspicious adnexal mass: a clinical practice guideline.

Authors:  J E Dodge; A L Covens; C Lacchetti; L M Elit; T Le; M Devries-Aboud; M Fung-Kee-Fung
Journal:  Curr Oncol       Date:  2012-08       Impact factor: 3.677

3.  A new computer-aided diagnostic tool for non-invasive characterisation of malignant ovarian masses: results of a multicentre validation study.

Authors:  Olivier Lucidarme; Jean-Paul Akakpo; Seth Granberg; Mario Sideri; Hanoch Levavi; Achim Schneider; Philippe Autier; Dror Nir; Harry Bleiberg
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2010-03-20       Impact factor: 5.315

4.  Accuracy of Pelvic Mass Score in Pre-operative Determination of Malignancy in Adnexal Masses.

Authors:  Lakshmi Mohan; Arun Rao; Sonali Ullal; Gowtham Krishna
Journal:  J Clin Diagn Res       Date:  2016-11-01

5.  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

6.  Simple ultrasound rules to distinguish between benign and malignant adnexal masses before surgery: prospective validation by IOTA group.

Authors:  Dirk Timmerman; Lieveke Ameye; Daniela Fischerova; Elisabeth Epstein; Gian Benedetto Melis; Stefano Guerriero; Caroline Van Holsbeke; Luca Savelli; Robert Fruscio; Andrea Alberto Lissoni; Antonia Carla Testa; Joan Veldman; Ignace Vergote; Sabine Van Huffel; Tom Bourne; Lil Valentin
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2010-12-14

Review 7.  Key findings from the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis (IOTA) study: an approach to the optimal ultrasound based characterisation of adnexal pathology.

Authors:  Jeroen Kaijser; Tom Bourne; Sylvie De Rijdt; Caroline Van Holsbeke; Ahmad Sayasneh; Lil Valentin; Ben Van Calster; Dirk Timmerman
Journal:  Australas J Ultrasound Med       Date:  2015-12-31

Review 8.  PET/CT and cross sectional imaging of gynecologic malignancy.

Authors:  Revathy B Iyer; Aparna Balachandran; Catherine E Devine
Journal:  Cancer Imaging       Date:  2007-10-01       Impact factor: 3.909

9.  Association between the sonographer's experience and diagnostic performance of IOTA simple rules.

Authors:  Chun-Ping Ning; Xiaoli Ji; Hong-Qiao Wang; Xiao-Ying Du; Hai-Tao Niu; Shi-Bao Fang
Journal:  World J Surg Oncol       Date:  2018-09-05       Impact factor: 2.754

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.