1
|
Patel-Lippmann KK, Wasnik AP, Akin EA, Andreotti RF, Ascher SM, Brook OR, Eskander RN, Feldman MK, Jones LP, Martino MA, Patel MD, Patlas MN, Revzin MA, VanBuren W, Yashar CM, Kang SK. ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Clinically Suspected Adnexal Mass, No Acute Symptoms: 2023 Update. J Am Coll Radiol 2024; 21:S79-S99. [PMID: 38823957 DOI: 10.1016/j.jacr.2024.02.017] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/20/2024] [Accepted: 02/28/2024] [Indexed: 06/03/2024]
Abstract
Asymptomatic adnexal masses are commonly encountered in daily radiology practice. Although the vast majority of these masses are benign, a small subset have a risk of malignancy, which require gynecologic oncology referral for best treatment outcomes. Ultrasound, using a combination of both transabdominal, transvaginal, and duplex Doppler technique can accurately characterize the majority of these lesions. MRI with and without contrast is a useful complementary modality that can help characterize indeterminate lesions and assess the risk of malignancy is those that are suspicious. The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and revision process support the systematic analysis of the medical literature from peer reviewed journals. Established methodology principles such as Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation or GRADE are adapted to evaluate the evidence. The RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method User Manual provides the methodology to determine the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In those instances where peer reviewed literature is lacking or equivocal, experts may be the primary evidentiary source available to formulate a recommendation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | - Esma A Akin
- The George Washington University Medical Center, Washington, District of Columbia; Commission on Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging
| | | | - Susan M Ascher
- MedStar Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, District of Columbia
| | - Olga R Brook
- Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Ramez N Eskander
- University of California, San Diego, San Diego, California; American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists
| | | | - Lisa P Jones
- Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
| | - Martin A Martino
- Ascension St. Vincent's, Jacksonville, Florida; University of South Florida, Tampa, Florida, Gynecologic oncologist
| | | | - Michael N Patlas
- Department of Medical Imaging, Temerty Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Margarita A Revzin
- Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut; Committee on Emergency Radiology-GSER
| | | | - Catheryn M Yashar
- University of California, San Diego, San Diego, California; Commission on Radiation Oncology
| | - Stella K Kang
- Specialty Chair, New York University Medical Center, New York, New York
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Mekni K, Baba M, Haddad I, Aaraar M, Mejri O, ElFekih C. [Applicability of the Adnex score in predicting the malignancy of ovarian cysts]. GYNECOLOGIE, OBSTETRIQUE, FERTILITE & SENOLOGIE 2024; 52:398-402. [PMID: 38065408 DOI: 10.1016/j.gofs.2023.12.001] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/14/2023] [Revised: 11/10/2023] [Accepted: 12/03/2023] [Indexed: 12/24/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE Ovarian cancer screening is a difficult problem due to the anatomy of the ovaries. Only histology allows a definite diagnosis. Our objective was to study the contribution of the Adnex score in the histological characterization of adnexal images for adequate management. METHODS It was a retrospective, mono-center, descriptive and analytical. Sixty-five patients were included, those operated for an ovarian cyst and meeting the Adnex criteria: clinical, ultrasound and laboratory. RESULTS The mean age of the patients was 38.6 years. They were nulliparous in 43 % of cases, and only four had a history of operation on ovarian cyst. Abdominal pelvic pain was the most frequent reason for consultation in 48 % of cases. An abdominopelvic mass was found on abdominal examination in 11 % of cases. Pelvic ultrasound made it possible to objectify the presence of an ovarian mass in all cases, with an average size of 79.66mm and a reassuring appearance in 66 % of cases. The calculation of the Adnex score was done in all patients preoperatively, for a 10 % cut-off, the model showed an 86 % chance of benignity for tumors proven to be histologically benign. The main route of entry was laparoscopy, in 61 % of cases. The treatment was in most cases conservative consisting essentially of a cystectomy. CONCLUSION The Adnex score discriminated well between benign and malignant masses, allowing for a better diagnosis preoperatively. It thus deserves its applicability in the clinical setting.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Karima Mekni
- Service de gynéco-obstétrique, hôpital Mahmoud El Matri, 2080 Ariana, Tunisie; Faculté of Médicine, Université Tunis El Manar, Tunis, Tunisia; Laboratoire de recherche LR18SP05, Tunis, Tunisia.
| | - Meriam Baba
- Service de gynéco-obstétrique, hôpital Mahmoud El Matri, 2080 Ariana, Tunisie
| | - Ines Haddad
- Service de gynéco-obstétrique, hôpital Mahmoud El Matri, 2080 Ariana, Tunisie
| | - Monia Aaraar
- Service de gynéco-obstétrique, hôpital Mahmoud El Matri, 2080 Ariana, Tunisie
| | - Oumayma Mejri
- Service de gynéco-obstétrique, hôpital Mahmoud El Matri, 2080 Ariana, Tunisie; Faculté of Médicine, Université Tunis El Manar, Tunis, Tunisia
| | - Chiraz ElFekih
- Service de gynéco-obstétrique, hôpital Mahmoud El Matri, 2080 Ariana, Tunisie; Faculté of Médicine, Université Tunis El Manar, Tunis, Tunisia
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Della Corte L, Cafasso V, Guarino MC, Gullo G, Cucinella G, Lopez A, Zaami S, Riemma G, Giampaolino P, Bifulco G. Current Preoperative Management of Vulvar Squamous Cell Carcinoma: An Overview. Cancers (Basel) 2024; 16:1846. [PMID: 38791925 PMCID: PMC11119127 DOI: 10.3390/cancers16101846] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/01/2024] [Revised: 05/08/2024] [Accepted: 05/10/2024] [Indexed: 05/26/2024] Open
Abstract
Vulvar carcinoma is a rare cancer affecting the genital tract, constituting 4% of gynecological tumors. Vulvar squamous cell carcinoma (VSCC) is the most common type. Diagnosis relies on biopsy during vulvoscopy, plus imaging such as ultrasonography (USG), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and positron emission tomography (PET). This review aims to lay out a thorough overview as to the current preoperative management of VSCC, both in case of vulvar and lymph node involvement. The data research was conducted using the following databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Sciences, Scopus, ClinicalTrial.gov, OVID and Cochrane Library from 2010 to 2024. The selection criteria included only original articles. Seventeen studies were assessed for eligibility. A concordance rate of 62.3% for vHSIL and 65.2% for carcinoma at vulvoscopy, with a sensitivity of 98%, specificity of 40%, PPV (Positive Predictive Value) of 37% and NPV (Negative Predictive Value) of 98% in identifying malignant lesions was found. Regarding the reliability of PET for staging and assessing lymph node involvement, a mean SUV (Standardized Uptake Value) for malignant vulvar lesions of 8.4 (range 2.5-14.7) was reported. In the case of MRI, useful for the evaluation of loco-regional infiltration and lymph node involvement, the ratio of the short-to-long-axis diameter and the reader's diagnostic confidence for the presence of lymph node metastasis yielded accuracy of 84.8% and 86.9%, sensitivity of 86.7% and 87.5%, specificity of 81.3% and 86.2%, PPV of 89.7% and 87.5% and NPV of 76.5% and 86.2%, respectively. A long lymph node axis >10 mm and a short diameter >5.8 mm were found to be predictors of malignancy. At USG, instead, the two main characteristics of potentially malignant lymph nodes are cortical thickness and short axis length; the combination of these ultrasound parameters yielded the highest accuracy in distinguishing between negative and positive lymph nodes. Despite the heterogeneity of the included studies and the lack of randomized clinical trials, this review provides a broad overview of the three imaging tools used for the presurgical management of VSCC. Nowadays, although MRI and PET represent the gold standard, ultrasound evaluation is taking on a growing role, as long as it is carried out by expert sonographer. The management of this rare disease should be always performed by a multidisciplinary team in order to precisely stage the tumor and determine the most suitable treatment approach.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Luigi Della Corte
- Department of Neuroscience, Reproductive Sciences and Dentistry, School of Medicine, University of Naples Federico II, 80131 Naples, Italy;
| | - Valeria Cafasso
- Department of Public Health, University of Naples Federico II, 80131 Naples, Italy; (V.C.); (M.C.G.); (P.G.); (G.B.)
| | - Maria Chiara Guarino
- Department of Public Health, University of Naples Federico II, 80131 Naples, Italy; (V.C.); (M.C.G.); (P.G.); (G.B.)
| | - Giuseppe Gullo
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Villa Sofia Cervello Hospital, University of Palermo, 90146 Palermo, Italy; (G.C.); (A.L.)
| | - Gaspare Cucinella
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Villa Sofia Cervello Hospital, University of Palermo, 90146 Palermo, Italy; (G.C.); (A.L.)
| | - Alessandra Lopez
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Villa Sofia Cervello Hospital, University of Palermo, 90146 Palermo, Italy; (G.C.); (A.L.)
| | - Simona Zaami
- Department of Anatomical, Histological, Forensic and Orthopedic Sciences, Departmental Section of Legal Medicine, “Sapienza” University of Rome, 00161 Rome, Italy;
| | - Gaetano Riemma
- Department of Woman, Child and General and Specialized Surgery, University of Campania “Luigi Vanvitelli”, 80138 Naples, Italy;
| | - Pierluigi Giampaolino
- Department of Public Health, University of Naples Federico II, 80131 Naples, Italy; (V.C.); (M.C.G.); (P.G.); (G.B.)
| | - Giuseppe Bifulco
- Department of Public Health, University of Naples Federico II, 80131 Naples, Italy; (V.C.); (M.C.G.); (P.G.); (G.B.)
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Lems E, Leemans JC, Lok CAR, Bongers MY, Geomini PMAJ. Current uptake and barriers to wider use of the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis (IOTA) models in Dutch gynaecological practice. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2023; 291:240-246. [PMID: 37939622 DOI: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2023.09.018] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/12/2023] [Revised: 09/05/2023] [Accepted: 09/21/2023] [Indexed: 11/10/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE Correct referral of women with an ovarian tumor to an oncology department remains challenging. The International Ovarian Tumor Analysis (IOTA) consortium has developed models with higher diagnostic accuracy than the alternative Risk of Malignancy Index (RMI). This study explores the uptake of the IOTA models in Dutch hospitals and factors that impede or promote implementation. Optimal implementation is crucial to improve pre-operative classification of ovarian tumors, which may lead to better patient referral to the appropriate level of care. STUDY DESIGN In February 2021, an electronic questionnaire consisting of 37 questions was sent to all 72 hospitals in the Netherlands. One pre-selected gynaecologist per hospital was asked to respond on behalf of the department. RESULTS The study had a response rate of 93% (67/72 hospitals). All respondents (100%) were familiar with the IOTA models with 94% using them in practice. The logistic regression 2 (LR2)-model, Simple ultrasound-based rules (SR) and Assessment of Different NEoplasias in the adneXa (ADNEX) model were used in respectively 40%, 67% and 73% of these hospitals. Respondents rated the models overall with an 8.2 (SD 1.8), 8.3 (SD 1.6) and 8.9 (SD 1.3) respectively for LR2, SR and ADNEX on a scale from 1 to 10. Moreover, 89% indicated to have confidence in the results of the IOTA models. The most important factors to improve further implementation are more training (43%), research on sensitivity, specificity and cost-effectiveness in the Dutch health care system (27%), easier usability (24%) and more consultation time (19%). CONCLUSION The IOTA ultrasound models are adopted in the majority of Dutch hospitals with the ADNEX model being used the most. While Dutch gynecologists have a strong familiarity and confidence in the models, the uptake varies in reality. Areas that warrant improvement in the Dutch context are more uniformity, education and more research. These findings can be helpful for other countries considering adopting the IOTA models.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- E Lems
- Máxima Medical Centre in Veldhoven, De Run 4600, 5504 DB Veldhoven, the Netherlands; Maastricht University Medical Centre and Research School Grow, Maastricht, P. Debyelaan 25, 6229 HX, the Netherlands.
| | - J C Leemans
- Máxima Medical Centre in Veldhoven, De Run 4600, 5504 DB Veldhoven, the Netherlands
| | - C A R Lok
- Department of Gynaecologic Oncology, Centre for Gynaecologic Oncology Amsterdam, the Netherlands Cancer Institute/Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - M Y Bongers
- Máxima Medical Centre in Veldhoven, De Run 4600, 5504 DB Veldhoven, the Netherlands; Maastricht University Medical Centre and Research School Grow, Maastricht, P. Debyelaan 25, 6229 HX, the Netherlands
| | - P M A J Geomini
- Máxima Medical Centre in Veldhoven, De Run 4600, 5504 DB Veldhoven, the Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Ledger A, Ceusters J, Valentin L, Testa A, Van Holsbeke C, Franchi D, Bourne T, Froyman W, Timmerman D, Van Calster B. Multiclass risk models for ovarian malignancy: an illustration of prediction uncertainty due to the choice of algorithm. BMC Med Res Methodol 2023; 23:276. [PMID: 38001421 PMCID: PMC10668424 DOI: 10.1186/s12874-023-02103-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/09/2023] [Accepted: 11/14/2023] [Indexed: 11/26/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Assessing malignancy risk is important to choose appropriate management of ovarian tumors. We compared six algorithms to estimate the probabilities that an ovarian tumor is benign, borderline malignant, stage I primary invasive, stage II-IV primary invasive, or secondary metastatic. METHODS This retrospective cohort study used 5909 patients recruited from 1999 to 2012 for model development, and 3199 patients recruited from 2012 to 2015 for model validation. Patients were recruited at oncology referral or general centers and underwent an ultrasound examination and surgery ≤ 120 days later. We developed models using standard multinomial logistic regression (MLR), Ridge MLR, random forest (RF), XGBoost, neural networks (NN), and support vector machines (SVM). We used nine clinical and ultrasound predictors but developed models with or without CA125. RESULTS Most tumors were benign (3980 in development and 1688 in validation data), secondary metastatic tumors were least common (246 and 172). The c-statistic (AUROC) to discriminate benign from any type of malignant tumor ranged from 0.89 to 0.92 for models with CA125, from 0.89 to 0.91 for models without. The multiclass c-statistic ranged from 0.41 (SVM) to 0.55 (XGBoost) for models with CA125, and from 0.42 (SVM) to 0.51 (standard MLR) for models without. Multiclass calibration was best for RF and XGBoost. Estimated probabilities for a benign tumor in the same patient often differed by more than 0.2 (20% points) depending on the model. Net Benefit for diagnosing malignancy was similar for algorithms at the commonly used 10% risk threshold, but was slightly higher for RF at higher thresholds. Comparing models, between 3% (XGBoost vs. NN, with CA125) and 30% (NN vs. SVM, without CA125) of patients fell on opposite sides of the 10% threshold. CONCLUSION Although several models had similarly good performance, individual probability estimates varied substantially.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ashleigh Ledger
- Department of Development and Regeneration, KU Leuven, Herestraat 49 box 805, Leuven, 3000, Belgium
| | - Jolien Ceusters
- Department of Development and Regeneration, KU Leuven, Herestraat 49 box 805, Leuven, 3000, Belgium
- Department of Oncology, Leuven Cancer Institute, Laboratory of Tumor Immunology and Immunotherapy, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
| | - Lil Valentin
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Skåne University Hospital, Malmö, Sweden
- Department of Clinical Sciences Malmö, Lund University, Malmö, Sweden
| | - Antonia Testa
- Department of Woman, Child and Public Health, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, Rome, Italy
- Dipartimento Universitario Scienze della Vita e Sanità Pubblica, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome, Italy
| | | | - Dorella Franchi
- Preventive Gynecology Unit, Division of Gynecology, European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy
| | - Tom Bourne
- Department of Development and Regeneration, KU Leuven, Herestraat 49 box 805, Leuven, 3000, Belgium
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
- Queen Charlotte's and Chelsea Hospital, Imperial College, London, UK
| | - Wouter Froyman
- Department of Development and Regeneration, KU Leuven, Herestraat 49 box 805, Leuven, 3000, Belgium
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
| | - Dirk Timmerman
- Department of Development and Regeneration, KU Leuven, Herestraat 49 box 805, Leuven, 3000, Belgium
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
| | - Ben Van Calster
- Department of Development and Regeneration, KU Leuven, Herestraat 49 box 805, Leuven, 3000, Belgium.
- Department of Biomedical Data Sciences, Leiden University Medical Centre (LUMC), Leiden, Netherlands.
- Leuven Unit for Health Technology Assessment Research (LUHTAR), KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Zhou S, Guo Y, Wen L, Liu J, Fu Y, Xu F, Liu M, Zhao B. Comparison of the diagnostic efficiency between the O-RADS US risk stratification system and doctors' subjective judgment. BMC Med Imaging 2023; 23:190. [PMID: 37986051 PMCID: PMC10662783 DOI: 10.1186/s12880-023-01153-9] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/30/2022] [Accepted: 11/13/2023] [Indexed: 11/22/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND This study aimed to compare the diagnostic efficiency of Ovarian-Adnexal Reporting and Data System (O-RADS) and doctors' subjective judgment in diagnosing the malignancy risk of adnexal masses. METHODS This was an analysis of 616 adnexal masses between 2017 and 2020. The clinical findings, preoperative ultrasound images, and pathological diagnosis were recorded. Each adnexal mass was evaluated by doctors' subjective judgment and O-RADS by two senior doctors and two junior doctors. A mass with an O-RADS grade of 1 to 3 was a benign tumor, and a mass with an O-RADS grade of 4-5 was a malignant tumor. All outcomes were compared with the pathological diagnosis. RESULTS Of the 616 adnexal masses, 469 (76.1%) were benign, and 147 (23.9%) were malignant. There was no difference between the area under the curve of O-RADS and the subjective judgment for junior doctors (0.83 (95% CI: 0.79-0.87) vs. 0.79 (95% CI: 0.76-0.83), p = 0.0888). The areas under the curve of O-RADS and subjective judgment were equal for senior doctors (0.86 (95% CI: 0.83-0.89) vs. 0.86 (95% CI: 0.83-0.90), p = 0.8904). O-RADS had much higher sensitivity than the subjective judgment in detecting malignant tumors for junior doctors (84.4% vs. 70.1%) and senior doctors (91.2% vs. 81.0%). In the subgroup analysis for detecting the main benign lesions of the mature cystic teratoma and ovarian endometriosic cyst, the junior doctors' diagnostic accuracy was obviously worse than the senior doctors' on using O-RADS. CONCLUSIONS O-RADS had excellent performance in predicting malignant adnexal masses. It could compensate for the lack of experience of junior doctors to a certain extent. Better performance in discriminating various benign lesions should be expected with some complement.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Shan Zhou
- Department of Ultrasound Diagnosis, The Second Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, No.139, Renmin Middle Road, Changsha, 410011, Hunan, China
- Health Management Center, The Second Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, No.139, Renmin Middle Road, Changsha, 410011, Hunan, China
| | - Yuyang Guo
- Department of Ultrasound Diagnosis, The Second Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, No.139, Renmin Middle Road, Changsha, 410011, Hunan, China
| | - Lieming Wen
- Department of Ultrasound Diagnosis, The Second Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, No.139, Renmin Middle Road, Changsha, 410011, Hunan, China
| | - Jieyu Liu
- Department of Ultrasound Diagnosis, The Second Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, No.139, Renmin Middle Road, Changsha, 410011, Hunan, China
| | - Yaqian Fu
- Health Management Center, The Second Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, No.139, Renmin Middle Road, Changsha, 410011, Hunan, China
| | - Fang Xu
- Department of Ultrasonography, The First Hospital of Changsha, No.311, Yingpan Road, Changsha, 410005, Hunan, China
| | - Minghui Liu
- Department of Ultrasound Diagnosis, The Second Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, No.139, Renmin Middle Road, Changsha, 410011, Hunan, China
| | - Baihua Zhao
- Department of Ultrasound Diagnosis, The Second Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, No.139, Renmin Middle Road, Changsha, 410011, Hunan, China.
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Brincat MR, Mira AR, Lawrence A. Current and Emerging Strategies for Tubo-Ovarian Cancer Diagnostics. Diagnostics (Basel) 2023; 13:3331. [PMID: 37958227 PMCID: PMC10647517 DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics13213331] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/04/2023] [Revised: 10/22/2023] [Accepted: 10/27/2023] [Indexed: 11/15/2023] Open
Abstract
Tubo-ovarian cancer is the most lethal gynaecological cancer. More than 75% of patients are diagnosed at an advanced stage, which is associated with poorer overall survival. Symptoms at presentation are vague and non-specific, contributing to late diagnosis. Multimodal risk models have improved the diagnostic accuracy of adnexal mass assessment based on patient risk factors, coupled with findings on imaging and serum-based biomarker tests. Newly developed ultrasonographic assessment algorithms have standardised documentation and enable stratification of care between local hospitals and cancer centres. So far, no screening test has proven to reduce ovarian cancer mortality in the general population. This review is an update on the evidence behind ovarian cancer diagnostic strategies.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mark R. Brincat
- Department of Gynaecological Oncology, Royal London Hospital, Barts Health NHS Trust, London E1 1FR, UK
| | - Ana Rita Mira
- Department of Gynaecological Oncology, Royal London Hospital, Barts Health NHS Trust, London E1 1FR, UK
- Hospital Garcia de Orta, 2805-267 Almada, Portugal
| | - Alexandra Lawrence
- Department of Gynaecological Oncology, Royal London Hospital, Barts Health NHS Trust, London E1 1FR, UK
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Yang Y, Ju H, Huang Y. Diagnostic performance of IOTA SR and O-RADS combined with CA125, HE4, and risk of malignancy algorithm to distinguish benign and malignant adnexal masses. Eur J Radiol 2023; 165:110926. [PMID: 37418798 DOI: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2023.110926] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/07/2023] [Revised: 05/18/2023] [Accepted: 06/09/2023] [Indexed: 07/09/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE To compare the diagnostic performance of International Ovarian Tumour Analysis Simple Rules (IOTA SR) and Ovarian-Adnexal Reporting and Data System (O-RADS), and to analyse whether combining IOTA SR and O-RADS with the biomarkers cancer antigen 125 (CA125), human epididymis protein 4 (HE4), and risk of malignancy algorithm (ROMA) further improves diagnostic performance in women with different menopause status. METHODS This study retrospectively included patients with ovarian adnexal masses confirmed by surgical pathology between September 2021 and February 2022. The area under the curve (AUC), sensitivity, and specificity were calculated to evaluate the diagnostic efficacy of IOTA SR, O-RADS, and their combination with CA125, HE4, and ROMA. RESULTS This study included 1,179 ovarian adnexal masses. In all women, the AUC of IOTA SR was comparable to O-RADS (0.879 vs. 0.889, P = 0.361), and O-RADS had a significantly higher sensitivity than IOTA SR (95.77 % vs. 87.32 %, P < 0.001). In premenopausal women, O-RADS had a significantly higher AUC than other diagnostic strategies (all P < 0.05), and the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were 93.33 %, 84.74 %, and 85.59 %, respectively. In postmenopausal women, IOTA SR + ROMA had a significantly higher AUC than other diagnostic strategies (all P < 0.05), and the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were 85.37 %, 93.88 %, and 90.00 %, respectively. CONCLUSIONS Our study supports the high diagnostic value of IOTA SR or O-RADS alone in all women, and O-RADS was more sensitive than IOTA SR. In premenopausal women, O-RADS had the highest diagnostic value. In postmenopausal women, IOTA SR outperformed O-RADS, and IOTA SR + ROMA had the highest diagnostic value.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Yang Yang
- Department of Ultrasound, China Medical University, Shengjing Hospital, No. 36 Sanhao Street, Heping District, Shenyang, 110004 Liaoning Province, China
| | - Hao Ju
- Department of Ultrasound, China Medical University, Shengjing Hospital, No. 36 Sanhao Street, Heping District, Shenyang, 110004 Liaoning Province, China
| | - Ying Huang
- Department of Ultrasound, China Medical University, Shengjing Hospital, No. 36 Sanhao Street, Heping District, Shenyang, 110004 Liaoning Province, China.
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
O-RADS Classification for Ultrasound Assessment of Adnexal Masses: Agreement between IOTA Lexicon and ADNEX Model for Assigning Risk Group. Diagnostics (Basel) 2023; 13:diagnostics13040673. [PMID: 36832161 PMCID: PMC9955729 DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics13040673] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/07/2022] [Revised: 02/07/2023] [Accepted: 02/07/2023] [Indexed: 02/15/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND The O-RADS system is a new proposal for establishing the risk of malignancy of adnexal masses using ultrasound. The objective of this study is to assess the agreement and diagnostic performance of O-RADS when using the IOTA lexicon or ADNEX model for assigning the O-RADS risk group. METHODS Retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data. All women diagnosed as having an adnexal mass underwent transvaginal/transabdominal ultrasound. Adnexal masses were classified according to the O-RADS classification, using the criterion of the IOTA lexicon and according to the risk of malignancy determined by the ADNEX model. The agreement between both methods for assigning the O-RADS group was estimated using weighted Kappa and the percentage of agreement. The sensitivity and specificity of both approaches were calculated. RESULTS 454 adnexal masses in 412 women were evaluated during the study period. There were 64 malignant masses. The agreement between the two approaches was moderate (Kappa: 0.47), and the percentage of agreement was 46%. Most disagreements occurred for the groups O-RADS 2 and 3 and for groups O-RADS 3 and 4. The sensitivity and specificity for O-RADS using the IOTA lexicon and O-RADS using the ADNEX model were 92.2% and 86.1%, and 85.9% and 87.4%, respectively. CONCLUSION The diagnostic performance of O-RADS classification using the IOTA lexicon as opposed to the IOTA ADNEX model is similar. However, O-RADS group assignment varies significantly, depending on the use of the IOTA lexicon or the risk estimation using the ADNEX model. This fact might be clinically relevant and deserves further research.
Collapse
|
10
|
Timmerman S, Valentin L, Ceusters J, Testa AC, Landolfo C, Sladkevicius P, Van Holsbeke C, Domali E, Fruscio R, Epstein E, Franchi D, Kudla MJ, Chiappa V, Alcazar JL, Leone FPG, Buonomo F, Coccia ME, Guerriero S, Deo N, Jokubkiene L, Kaijser J, Scambia G, Andreotti R, Timmerman D, Bourne T, Van Calster B, Froyman W. External Validation of the Ovarian-Adnexal Reporting and Data System (O-RADS) Lexicon and the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis 2-Step Strategy to Stratify Ovarian Tumors Into O-RADS Risk Groups. JAMA Oncol 2023; 9:225-233. [PMID: 36520422 PMCID: PMC9856950 DOI: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2022.5969] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/23/2022]
Abstract
Importance Correct diagnosis of ovarian cancer results in better prognosis. Adnexal lesions can be stratified into the Ovarian-Adnexal Reporting and Data System (O-RADS) risk of malignancy categories with either the O-RADS lexicon, proposed by the American College of Radiology, or the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis (IOTA) 2-step strategy. Objective To investigate the diagnostic performance of the O-RADS lexicon and the IOTA 2-step strategy. Design, Setting, and Participants Retrospective external diagnostic validation study based on interim data of IOTA5, a prospective international multicenter cohort study, in 36 oncology referral centers or other types of centers. A total of 8519 consecutive adult patients presenting with an adnexal mass between January 1, 2012, and March 1, 2015, and treated either with surgery or conservatively were included in this diagnostic study. Twenty-five patients were excluded for withdrawal of consent, 2777 were excluded from 19 centers that did not meet predefined data quality criteria, and 812 were excluded because they were already in follow-up at recruitment. The analysis included 4905 patients with a newly detected adnexal mass in 17 centers that met predefined data quality criteria. Data were analyzed from January 31 to March 1, 2022. Exposures Stratification into O-RADS categories (malignancy risk <1%, 1% to <10%, 10% to <50%, and ≥50%). For the IOTA 2-step strategy, the stratification is based on the individual risk of malignancy calculated with the IOTA 2-step strategy. Main Outcomes and Measures Observed prevalence of malignancy in each O-RADS risk category, as well as sensitivity and specificity. The reference standard was the status of the tumor at inclusion, determined by histology or clinical and ultrasonographic follow-up for 1 year. Multiple imputation was used for uncertain outcomes owing to inconclusive follow-up information. Results Median age of the 4905 patients was 48 years (IQR, 36-62 years). Data on race and ethnicity were not collected. A total of 3441 tumors (70%) were benign, 978 (20%) were malignant, and 486 (10%) had uncertain classification. Using the O-RADS lexicon resulted in 1.1% (24 of 2196) observed prevalence of malignancy in O-RADS 2, 4% (34 of 857) in O-RADS 3, 27% (246 of 904) in O-RADS 4, and 78% (732 of 939) in O-RADS 5; the corresponding results for the IOTA 2-step strategy were 0.9% (18 of 1984), 4% (58 of 1304), 30% (206 of 690), and 82% (756 of 927). At the 10% risk threshold (O-RADS 4-5), the O-RADS lexicon had 92% sensitivity (95% CI, 87%-96%) and 80% specificity (95% CI, 74%-85%), and the IOTA 2-step strategy had 91% sensitivity (95% CI, 84%-95%) and 85% specificity (95% CI, 80%-88%). Conclusions and Relevance The findings of this external diagnostic validation study suggest that both the O-RADS lexicon and the IOTA 2-step strategy can be used to stratify patients into risk groups. However, the observed malignancy rate in O-RADS 2 was not clearly below 1%.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Stefan Timmerman
- Department of Development and Regeneration, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.,Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospital Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
| | - Lil Valentin
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Skåne University Hospital, Malmö, Sweden.,Department of Clinical Sciences Malmö, Lund University, Malmö, Sweden
| | - Jolien Ceusters
- Laboratory of Tumor Immunology and Immunotherapy, Department of Oncology, Leuven Cancer Institute, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
| | - Antonia C Testa
- Dipartimento Scienze della Salute della Donna, del Bambino e di Sanità Pubblica, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli, IRCSS, Rome, Italy
| | - Chiara Landolfo
- Queen Charlotte's and Chelsea Hospital, Imperial College, London, United Kingdom
| | - Povilas Sladkevicius
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Skåne University Hospital, Malmö, Sweden.,Department of Clinical Sciences Malmö, Lund University, Malmö, Sweden
| | | | - Ekaterini Domali
- First Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Alexandra Hospital, Medical School, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece
| | - Robert Fruscio
- Clinic of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Milan-Bicocca, San Gerardo Hospital, Monza, Italy
| | - Elisabeth Epstein
- Department of Clinical Science and Education, Karolinska Institutet and Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Södersjukhuset, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - Dorella Franchi
- Preventive Gynecology Unit, Division of Gynecology, European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy
| | - Marek J Kudla
- Department of Perinatology and Oncological Gynecology, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Medical University of Silesia, Katowice, Poland
| | - Valentina Chiappa
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology, National Cancer Institute of Milan, Milan, Italy
| | - Juan L Alcazar
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Clinica Universidad de Navarra, School of Medicine, Pamplona, Spain
| | - Francesco P G Leone
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Biomedical and Clinical Sciences Institute L. Sacco, University of Milan, Milan, Italy
| | - Francesca Buonomo
- Institute for Maternal and Child Health-IRCCS "Burlo Garofolo," Trieste, Italy
| | - Maria Elisabetta Coccia
- Department of Biomedical, Experimental and Clinical Sciences, University of Florence, Florence, Italy
| | - Stefano Guerriero
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Cagliari, Policlinico Universitario Duilio Casula, Monserrato, Cagliari, Italy
| | - Nandita Deo
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Whipps Cross Hospital, London, United Kingdom
| | - Ligita Jokubkiene
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Skåne University Hospital, Malmö, Sweden.,Department of Clinical Sciences Malmö, Lund University, Malmö, Sweden
| | - Jeroen Kaijser
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Ikazia Hospital, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Giovanni Scambia
- Dipartimento Scienze della Salute della Donna, del Bambino e di Sanità Pubblica, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli, IRCSS, Rome, Italy
| | - Rochelle Andreotti
- Department of Radiology and Radiological Sciences, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee.,Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee
| | - Dirk Timmerman
- Department of Development and Regeneration, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.,Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospital Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
| | - Tom Bourne
- Department of Development and Regeneration, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.,Queen Charlotte's and Chelsea Hospital, Imperial College, London, United Kingdom
| | - Ben Van Calster
- Department of Development and Regeneration, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.,Department of Biomedical Data Sciences, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, the Netherlands
| | - Wouter Froyman
- Department of Development and Regeneration, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.,Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospital Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Landolfo C, Bourne T, Froyman W, Van Calster B, Ceusters J, Testa AC, Wynants L, Sladkevicius P, Van Holsbeke C, Domali E, Fruscio R, Epstein E, Franchi D, Kudla MJ, Chiappa V, Alcazar JL, Leone FPG, Buonomo F, Coccia ME, Guerriero S, Deo N, Jokubkiene L, Savelli L, Fischerova D, Czekierdowski A, Kaijser J, Coosemans A, Scambia G, Vergote I, Timmerman D, Valentin L. Benign descriptors and ADNEX in two-step strategy to estimate risk of malignancy in ovarian tumors: retrospective validation in IOTA5 multicenter cohort. ULTRASOUND IN OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY : THE OFFICIAL JOURNAL OF THE INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY OF ULTRASOUND IN OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY 2023; 61:231-242. [PMID: 36178788 PMCID: PMC10107772 DOI: 10.1002/uog.26080] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/27/2022] [Revised: 08/26/2022] [Accepted: 09/16/2022] [Indexed: 05/27/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE Previous work has suggested that the ultrasound-based benign simple descriptors (BDs) can reliably exclude malignancy in a large proportion of women presenting with an adnexal mass. This study aimed to validate a modified version of the BDs and to validate a two-step strategy to estimate the risk of malignancy, in which the modified BDs are followed by the Assessment of Different NEoplasias in the adneXa (ADNEX) model if modified BDs do not apply. METHODS This was a retrospective analysis using data from the 2-year interim analysis of the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis (IOTA) Phase-5 study, in which consecutive patients with at least one adnexal mass were recruited irrespective of subsequent management (conservative or surgery). The main outcome was classification of tumors as benign or malignant, based on histology or on clinical and ultrasound information during 1 year of follow-up. Multiple imputation was used when outcome based on follow-up was uncertain according to predefined criteria. RESULTS A total of 8519 patients were recruited at 36 centers between 2012 and 2015. We excluded patients who were already in follow-up at recruitment and all patients from 19 centers that did not fulfil our criteria for good-quality surgical and follow-up data, leaving 4905 patients across 17 centers for statistical analysis. Overall, 3441 (70%) tumors were benign, 978 (20%) malignant and 486 (10%) uncertain. The modified BDs were applicable in 1798/4905 (37%) tumors, of which 1786 (99.3%) were benign. The two-step strategy based on ADNEX without CA125 had an area under the receiver-operating-characteristics curve (AUC) of 0.94 (95% CI, 0.92-0.96). The risk of malignancy was slightly underestimated, but calibration varied between centers. A sensitivity analysis in which we expanded the definition of uncertain outcome resulted in 1419 (29%) tumors with uncertain outcome and an AUC of the two-step strategy without CA125 of 0.93 (95% CI, 0.91-0.95). CONCLUSION A large proportion of adnexal masses can be classified as benign by the modified BDs. For the remaining masses, the ADNEX model can be used to estimate the risk of malignancy. This two-step strategy is convenient for clinical use. © 2022 The Authors. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- C. Landolfo
- Department of Development and RegenerationKU LeuvenLeuvenBelgium
- Department of Woman, Child and Public HealthFondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCSRomeItaly
| | - T. Bourne
- Department of Development and RegenerationKU LeuvenLeuvenBelgium
- Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyUniversity Hospitals LeuvenLeuvenBelgium
- Queen Charlotte's and Chelsea HospitalImperial College Healthcare NHS TrustLondonUK
| | - W. Froyman
- Department of Development and RegenerationKU LeuvenLeuvenBelgium
- Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyUniversity Hospitals LeuvenLeuvenBelgium
| | - B. Van Calster
- Department of Development and RegenerationKU LeuvenLeuvenBelgium
- Department of Biomedical Data SciencesLeiden University Medical Centre (LUMC)LeidenThe Netherlands
| | - J. Ceusters
- Department of Development and RegenerationKU LeuvenLeuvenBelgium
- Laboratory of Tumor Immunology and Immunotherapy, Department of OncologyLeuven Cancer Institute, KU LeuvenLeuvenBelgium
| | - A. C. Testa
- Department of Woman, Child and Public HealthFondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCSRomeItaly
- Dipartimento Universitario Scienze della Vita e Sanità PubblicaUniversità Cattolica del Sacro CuoreRomeItaly
| | - L. Wynants
- Department of Development and RegenerationKU LeuvenLeuvenBelgium
- Department of EpidemiologyCAPHRI Care and Public Health Research Institute, Maastricht UniversityMaastrichtThe Netherlands
| | - P. Sladkevicius
- Department of Obstetrics and GynecologySkåne University HospitalMalmöSweden
- Department of Clinical Sciences MalmöLund UniversityLundSweden
| | - C. Van Holsbeke
- Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyZiekenhuis Oost‐LimburgGenkBelgium
| | - E. Domali
- First Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyAlexandra Hospital, National and Kapodistrian University of AthensAthensGreece
| | - R. Fruscio
- Clinic of Obstetrics and GynecologyUniversity of Milano‐Bicocca, San Gerardo HospitalMonzaItaly
| | - E. Epstein
- Department of Clinical Science and EducationKarolinska InstitutetStockholmSweden
- Department of Obstetrics and GynecologySödersjukhusetStockholmSweden
| | - D. Franchi
- Preventive Gynecology Unit, Division of GynecologyEuropean Institute of Oncology IRCCSMilanItaly
| | - M. J. Kudla
- Department of Perinatology and Oncological GynecologyFaculty of Medical Sciences, Medical University of SilesiaKatowicePoland
| | - V. Chiappa
- Department of Gynecologic OncologyNational Cancer Institute of MilanMilanItaly
| | - J. L. Alcazar
- Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyClinica Universidad de Navarra, School of MedicinePamplonaSpain
| | - F. P. G. Leone
- Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyBiomedical and Clinical Sciences Institute L. Sacco, University of MilanMilanItaly
| | - F. Buonomo
- Institute for Maternal and Child HealthIRCCS ‘Burlo Garofolo’TriesteItaly
| | - M. E. Coccia
- Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyUniversity of FlorenceFlorenceItaly
| | - S. Guerriero
- Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyUniversity of Cagliari, Policlinico Universitario Duilio CasulaCagliariItaly
| | - N. Deo
- Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyWhipps Cross HospitalLondonUK
| | - L. Jokubkiene
- Department of Obstetrics and GynecologySkåne University HospitalMalmöSweden
- Department of Clinical Sciences MalmöLund UniversityLundSweden
| | - L. Savelli
- Gynecology and Physiopathology of Human Reproduction UnitSant'Orsola‐Malpighi Hospital of BolognaBolognaItaly
| | - D. Fischerova
- Gynecologic Oncology Centre, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, First Faculty of MedicineCharles University and General University Hospital in PraguePragueCzech Republic
| | - A. Czekierdowski
- First Department of Gynecological Oncology and GynecologyMedical University of LublinLublinPoland
| | - J. Kaijser
- Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyIkazia HospitalRotterdamThe Netherlands
| | - A. Coosemans
- Laboratory of Tumor Immunology and Immunotherapy, Department of OncologyLeuven Cancer Institute, KU LeuvenLeuvenBelgium
| | - G. Scambia
- Department of Woman, Child and Public HealthFondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCSRomeItaly
- Dipartimento Universitario Scienze della Vita e Sanità PubblicaUniversità Cattolica del Sacro CuoreRomeItaly
| | - I. Vergote
- Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyUniversity Hospitals LeuvenLeuvenBelgium
- Laboratory of Tumor Immunology and Immunotherapy, Department of OncologyLeuven Cancer Institute, KU LeuvenLeuvenBelgium
| | - D. Timmerman
- Department of Development and RegenerationKU LeuvenLeuvenBelgium
- Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyUniversity Hospitals LeuvenLeuvenBelgium
| | - L. Valentin
- Department of Obstetrics and GynecologySkåne University HospitalMalmöSweden
- Department of Clinical Sciences MalmöLund UniversityLundSweden
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Diagnostic Performances of Ultrasound-Based Models for Predicting Malignancy in Patients with Adnexal Masses. Healthcare (Basel) 2022; 11:healthcare11010008. [PMID: 36611467 PMCID: PMC9818896 DOI: 10.3390/healthcare11010008] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/04/2022] [Revised: 12/08/2022] [Accepted: 12/08/2022] [Indexed: 12/24/2022] Open
Abstract
This study compared the diagnostic performance of different ultrasound-based models in discriminating between benign and malignant ovarian masses in a Filipino population. This was a prospective cohort study in women with findings of an ovarian mass on ultrasound. All included patients underwent a physical examination before level III specialist ultrasonographic and Doppler evaluation using the different International Ovarian Tumor Analysis (IOTA) Group’s risk models. Serum CA-125 and a second-generation multivariate index assay (MIA2G) were also determined for all patients. The ovarian imaging and biomarker results were correlated with the histological findings. A total of 260 patients with completed ultrasound, CA-125, MIA2G, and histopathologic results was included in the study. The presence of papillae with blood flow and irregular cyst walls during the ultrasound were significantly associated with a 20-fold (OR: 20.13, CI: 8.69−46.67, p < 0.01) and 10-fold (OR: 10.11, CI: 5.30−19.28, p < 0.01) increase in the likelihood of a malignant lesion, respectively. All individual sonologic procedures performed well in discerning malignant and benign ovarian lesions. IOTA-LR1 showed the highest accuracy (82.6%, 95% CI: 77.5−87%) for identifying ovarian cancer. IOTA-ADNEX showed the highest sensitivity (93.3%, 95% CI: 87.2−97.1%) while IOTA-LR2 exhibited the highest specificity (84.4%, 95% CI: 77.3−90%). Among the different serial test combinations, IOTA-LR1 with MIA2G and IOTA-LR2 with MIA2G showed the highest diagnostic accuracy (AUROC = 0.82). This study showed that all individual ultrasound-based models performed well in discerning malignant and benign ovarian lesions, with IOTA-LR1 exhibiting the highest accuracy.
Collapse
|
13
|
Chen GY, Hsu TF, Chan IS, Liu CH, Chao WT, Shih YC, Jiang LY, Chang YH, Wang PH, Chen YJ. Comparison of the O-RADS and ADNEX models regarding malignancy rate and validity in evaluating adnexal lesions. Eur Radiol 2022; 32:7854-7864. [PMID: 35583711 DOI: 10.1007/s00330-022-08803-6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/22/2021] [Revised: 04/10/2022] [Accepted: 04/13/2022] [Indexed: 01/03/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE This study aimed to compare the ability of the O-RADS and ADNEX models to classify benign or malignant adnexal lesions. METHODS This retrospective single-center study included women who underwent surgery for adnexal lesions. Two gynecologists independently categorized the adnexal lesions according to the O-RADS and ADNEX models. Four additional readers were included to validate the new quick-access O-RADS flowchart. RESULTS Among the 322 patients included in this study, 264 (82.0%) had a benign diagnosis, and 58 (18.0%) had a malignant diagnosis. The malignant rates of O-RADS 2, O-RADS 3, O-RADS 4, and O-RADS 5 were 0%, 3.0%, 37.7%, and 78.9%, respectively. The AUC of the O-RADS in the 322 patients was 0.93. On comparing the O-RADS and ADNEX models in the remaining 281 patients, the AUCs of the O-RADS, ADNEX model with CA125, and ADNEX model without CA125 were 0.92, 0.95, and 0.94, respectively. When setting a uniform cutoff of ≥ 10% (≥ O-RADS 4) to predict malignancy, the O-RADS had higher sensitivity than the ADNEX model (96.6% vs. 91.4%), and relatively similar specificity. In addition, the readers with the quick-access flowchart spent less time categorizing O-RADS than the readers with only the original O-RADS table (mean analysis time: 99 min 15 s vs. 111 min 55 s). CONCLUSIONS The O-RADS classification of the adnexal lesions as benign or malignant was comparable to that of the ADNEX model and had higher sensitivity at the 10% cutoff value. A quick-access O-RADS flowchart was helpful in O-RADS categorization and might shorten the analysis time. KEY POINTS • Both O-RADS and ADNEX models had good diagnostic performance in distinguishing adnexal malignancy, and O-RADS had higher sensitivity than ADNEX model in uniform 10% cutoff to predict malignancy. • Quick-access O-RADS flowchart was developed to help review O-RADS classification and might help reduce the analysis time.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Guan-Yeu Chen
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan.,Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University, Taipei, Taiwan
| | - Teh-Fu Hsu
- Department of Emergency Medicine, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan.,College of Nursing, National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University, Taipei, Taiwan.,School of Medicine, National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University, Taipei, Taiwan
| | - I-San Chan
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan.,Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University, Taipei, Taiwan
| | - Chia-Hao Liu
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan.,Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University, Taipei, Taiwan.,School of Medicine, National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University, Taipei, Taiwan.,Institute of Clinical Medicine, National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University, Taipei, Taiwan
| | - Wei-Ting Chao
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan.,Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University, Taipei, Taiwan.,School of Medicine, National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University, Taipei, Taiwan.,Institute of Clinical Medicine, National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University, Taipei, Taiwan
| | - Ying-Chu Shih
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan.,Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University, Taipei, Taiwan
| | - Ling-Yu Jiang
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan.,Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University, Taipei, Taiwan.,School of Medicine, National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University, Taipei, Taiwan.,Institute of Clinical Medicine, National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University, Taipei, Taiwan
| | - Yen-Hou Chang
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan.,Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University, Taipei, Taiwan.,School of Medicine, National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University, Taipei, Taiwan.,Institute of Clinical Medicine, National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University, Taipei, Taiwan
| | - Peng-Hui Wang
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan.,Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University, Taipei, Taiwan.,School of Medicine, National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University, Taipei, Taiwan.,Institute of Clinical Medicine, National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University, Taipei, Taiwan.,Department of Medical Research, China Medical University Hospital, Taichung, Taiwan.,The Female Cancer Foundation, Taipei, Taiwan
| | - Yi-Jen Chen
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan. .,Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University, Taipei, Taiwan. .,School of Medicine, National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University, Taipei, Taiwan. .,Institute of Clinical Medicine, National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University, Taipei, Taiwan.
| |
Collapse
|
14
|
Heremans R, Valentin L, Sladkevicius P, Timmerman S, Moro F, Van Holsbeke C, Epstein E, Testa AC, Timmerman D, Froyman W. Imaging in gynecological disease (24): clinical and ultrasound characteristics of ovarian mature cystic teratomas. ULTRASOUND IN OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY : THE OFFICIAL JOURNAL OF THE INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY OF ULTRASOUND IN OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY 2022; 60:549-558. [PMID: 35316568 DOI: 10.1002/uog.24904] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/17/2022] [Revised: 02/16/2022] [Accepted: 03/14/2022] [Indexed: 06/14/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To describe the clinical and ultrasound features of ovarian mature cystic teratomas (MCTs). METHODS This was a retrospective study. From the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis (IOTA) database, we identified patients with a histologically confirmed diagnosis of MCT who had undergone transvaginal ultrasound examination between 1999 and 2016 (IOTA phases 1, 2, 3 and 5) in one of five centers. Ultrasound was performed by an experienced examiner who used the standardized IOTA examination technique and terminology. In addition to extracting data from the IOTA database, available two-dimensional grayscale and color or power Doppler images were reviewed retrospectively to identify typical ultrasound features of MCT described previously and detect possible new features using pattern recognition. All images were reviewed by two independent examiners and further discussed with two ultrasound experts to reach consensus. RESULTS Included in the study were 454 patients with histologically confirmed MCT. Median age was 33 (range, 8-90) years and 66 (14.5%) patients were postmenopausal. Most MCTs were described by the original ultrasound examiner as unilocular (262/454 (57.7%)) or multilocular (70/454 (15.4%)) cysts with mixed echogenicity of cystic fluid (368/454 (81.1%)), acoustic shadowing (328/454 (72.2%)) and no or little vascularization on color Doppler (color score 1, 240/454 (52.9%); color score 2, 123/454 (27.1%)). The median largest lesion diameter was 66 (range, 15-310) mm. A correct preoperative diagnosis of MCT was suggested by the original ultrasound examiner in 372/454 (81.9%) cases. On retrospective review of ultrasound images of 334 MCTs that had quality sufficient for assessment, 'dots and/or lines' and/or 'echogenic white ball' (typical features according to the literature) were present in 271/334 (81.1%) masses. We identified four new ultrasound features characteristic of MCT: 'cotton wool tufts', 'mushroom cap sign', 'completely hyperechogenic lesion' and 'starry sky sign'. At least one classical or novel ultrasound feature was present in 315/334 (94.3%) MCTs. Twenty-nine (8.7%) MCTs manifested vascularized solid tissue, of which seven exhibited no typical features. CONCLUSION We provide a comprehensive overview of conventional and newly described ultrasound features of MCTs. Only a small proportion of MCTs did not manifest any of the typical features. © 2022 International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- R Heremans
- Department of Development and Regeneration, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
| | - L Valentin
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Skåne University Hospital, Malmö, Sweden
- Department of Clinical Sciences Malmö, Lund University, Lund, Sweden
| | - P Sladkevicius
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Skåne University Hospital, Malmö, Sweden
| | - S Timmerman
- Department of Development and Regeneration, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
| | - F Moro
- Dipartimento Scienze della Salute della Donna, del Bambino e di Sanità Pubblica, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli, IRCSS, Rome, Italy
| | - C Van Holsbeke
- Department of Development and Regeneration, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Ziekenhuis Oost-Limburg, Genk, Belgium
| | - E Epstein
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Södersjukhuset, Stockholm, Sweden
- Department of Clinical Science and Education, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - A C Testa
- Dipartimento Scienze della Salute della Donna, del Bambino e di Sanità Pubblica, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli, IRCSS, Rome, Italy
| | - D Timmerman
- Department of Development and Regeneration, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
| | - W Froyman
- Department of Development and Regeneration, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
| |
Collapse
|
15
|
Afsar S. Biomarkers in Gynecologic Tumors. Biomark Med 2022. [DOI: 10.2174/9789815040463122010004] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/24/2022] Open
Abstract
Gynecologic malignancies are one of the most frequent cancers amongst
women. Biomarkers are crucial for the differential diagnosis of adnexal masses;
however, their potential for diagnosis is limited. In the era of difficulty in ovarian
cancer screening, novel biomarkers are defined, but CA125 still remains the most
valuable one. Circulating tumor DNAs, DNA hypermethylation, metabolites,
microRNAs, and kallikreins have recently turned out as ovarian cancer biomarkers and
are being applied to clinical practice. For uterine cancer, genomic classification has
now been described, it will be used as a prognostic tool. In this chapter, we describe
ovarian, endometrial, and cervical cancer biomarkers in detail.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Selim Afsar
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Balıkesir University Medical Faculty, Balikesir,
Turkey
| |
Collapse
|
16
|
Davenport CF, Rai N, Sharma P, Deeks J, Berhane S, Mallett S, Saha P, Solanki R, Bayliss S, Snell K, Sundar S. Diagnostic Models Combining Clinical Information, Ultrasound and Biochemical Markers for Ovarian Cancer: Cochrane Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Cancers (Basel) 2022; 14:3621. [PMID: 35892881 PMCID: PMC9332683 DOI: 10.3390/cancers14153621] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/13/2022] [Accepted: 06/21/2022] [Indexed: 12/22/2022] Open
Abstract
Background: Ovarian cancer (OC) is a diagnostic challenge, with the majority diagnosed at late stages. Existing systematic reviews of diagnostic models either use inappropriate meta-analytic methods or do not conduct statistical comparisons of models or stratify test performance by menopausal status. Methods: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, CDSR, DARE, Health Technology Assessment Database and SCI Science Citation Index, trials registers, conference proceedings from 1991 to June 2019. Cochrane collaboration review methods included QUADAS-2 quality assessment and meta-analysis using hierarchical modelling. RMI, ROMA or ADNEX at any test positivity threshold were investigated. Histology or clinical follow-up was the reference standard. We excluded screening studies, studies restricted to pregnancy, recurrent or metastatic OC. 2 × 2 diagnostic tables were extracted separately for pre- and post-menopausal women. Results: We included 58 studies (30,121 patients, 9061 cases of ovarian cancer). Prevalence of OC ranged from 16 to 55% in studies. For premenopausal women, ROMA at a threshold of 13.1 (+/−2) and ADNEX at a threshold of 10% demonstrated significantly higher sensitivity compared to RMI I at 200 (p < 0.0001) 77.8 (72.5, 82.4), 94.9 (92.5, 96.6), and 57.1% (50.6 to 63.4) but lower specificity (p < 0.002), 92.5 (90.0, 94.4), 84.3 (81.3, 86.8), and 78.2 (75.8, 80.4). For postmenopausal women, ROMA at a threshold of 27.7 (+/−2) and AdNEX at a threshold of 10% demonstrated significantly higher sensitivity compared to RMI I at a threshold of 200 (p < 0.001) 90.4 (87.4, 92.7), 97.6 (96.2, 98.5), and 78.7 (74.3, 82.5), specificity of ROMA was comparable, whilst ADneX was lower, 85.5 (81.3, 88.9), 81.3 (76.9, 85.0) (p = 0.155), compared to RMI 55.2 (51.2, 59.1) (p < 0.001). Conclusions: In pre-menopausal women, ROMA and ADNEX offer significantly higher sensitivity but significantly decreased specificity. In post-menopausal women, ROMA demonstrates significantly higher sensitivity and comparable specificity to RMI I, ADNEX has the highest sensitivity of all models, but with significantly reduced specificity. RMI I has poor sensitivity compared to ROMA or ADNEX. Choice between ROMA and ADNEX as a replacement test will depend on cost effectiveness and resource implications.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Clare F. Davenport
- Test Evaluation Research Group, Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham B15 2TT, UK; (P.S.); (J.D.); (S.B.); (S.B.)
- NIHR Birmingham Biomedical Research Centre, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, University of Birmingham, Birmingham B15 2TT, UK
| | - Nirmala Rai
- Southend University Hospital NHS Trust, Southend-on-Sea SS0 0RY, UK;
| | - Pawana Sharma
- Test Evaluation Research Group, Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham B15 2TT, UK; (P.S.); (J.D.); (S.B.); (S.B.)
- NIHR Birmingham Biomedical Research Centre, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, University of Birmingham, Birmingham B15 2TT, UK
| | - Jon Deeks
- Test Evaluation Research Group, Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham B15 2TT, UK; (P.S.); (J.D.); (S.B.); (S.B.)
- NIHR Birmingham Biomedical Research Centre, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, University of Birmingham, Birmingham B15 2TT, UK
| | - Sarah Berhane
- Test Evaluation Research Group, Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham B15 2TT, UK; (P.S.); (J.D.); (S.B.); (S.B.)
- NIHR Birmingham Biomedical Research Centre, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, University of Birmingham, Birmingham B15 2TT, UK
| | - Sue Mallett
- Centre for Medical Imaging, University College London, London NW1 2BU, UK;
| | - Pratyusha Saha
- College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham B15 2TT, UK;
| | - Rita Solanki
- Nuffield Division of Clinical Laboratory Sciences, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford OX3 9DU, UK;
| | - Susan Bayliss
- Test Evaluation Research Group, Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham B15 2TT, UK; (P.S.); (J.D.); (S.B.); (S.B.)
- NIHR Birmingham Biomedical Research Centre, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, University of Birmingham, Birmingham B15 2TT, UK
| | - Kym Snell
- Centre for Prognosis Research, School of Primary, Community and Social Care, Keele University, Keele ST5 5BG, UK;
| | - Sudha Sundar
- Pan Birmingham Gynaecological Cancer Centre, City Hospital, Birmingham B187QH, UK
- Institute of Cancer and Genomic Sciences, University of Birmingham, Vincent Drive, Edgbaston, Birmingham B152TT, UK
| |
Collapse
|
17
|
Davenport C, Rai N, Sharma P, Deeks JJ, Berhane S, Mallett S, Saha P, Champaneria R, Bayliss SE, Snell KI, Sundar S. Menopausal status, ultrasound and biomarker tests in combination for the diagnosis of ovarian cancer in symptomatic women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2022; 7:CD011964. [PMID: 35879201 PMCID: PMC9314189 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd011964.pub2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/14/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Ovarian cancer (OC) has the highest case fatality rate of all gynaecological cancers. Diagnostic delays are caused by non-specific symptoms. Existing systematic reviews have not comprehensively covered tests in current practice, not estimated accuracy separately in pre- and postmenopausal women, or used inappropriate meta-analytic methods. OBJECTIVES To establish the accuracy of combinations of menopausal status, ultrasound scan (USS) and biomarkers for the diagnosis of ovarian cancer in pre- and postmenopausal women and compare the accuracy of different test combinations. SEARCH METHODS We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), five other databases and three trial registries from 1991 to 2015 and MEDLINE (Ovid) and Embase (Ovid) form June 2015 to June 2019. We also searched conference proceedings from the European Society of Gynaecological Oncology, International Gynecologic Cancer Society, American Society of Clinical Oncology and Society of Gynecologic Oncology, ZETOC and Conference Proceedings Citation Index (Web of Knowledge). We searched reference lists of included studies and published systematic reviews. SELECTION CRITERIA We included cross-sectional diagnostic test accuracy studies evaluating single tests or comparing two or more tests, randomised trials comparing two or more tests, and studies validating multivariable models for the diagnosis of OC investigating test combinations, compared with a reference standard of histological confirmation or clinical follow-up in women with a pelvic mass (detected clinically or through USS) suspicious for OC. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed quality using QUADAS-2. We used the bivariate hierarchical model to indirectly compare tests at commonly reported thresholds in pre- and postmenopausal women separately. We indirectly compared tests across all thresholds and estimated sensitivity at fixed specificities of 80% and 90% by fitting hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic (HSROC) models in pre- and postmenopausal women separately. MAIN RESULTS We included 59 studies (32,059 women, 9545 cases of OC). Two tests evaluated the accuracy of a combination of menopausal status and USS findings (IOTA Logistic Regression Model 2 (LR2) and the Assessment of Different NEoplasias in the adneXa model (ADNEX)); one test evaluated the accuracy of a combination of menopausal status, USS findings and serum biomarker CA125 (Risk of Malignancy Index (RMI)); and one test evaluated the accuracy of a combination of menopausal status and two serum biomarkers (CA125 and HE4) (Risk of Ovarian Malignancy Algorithm (ROMA)). Most studies were at high or unclear risk of bias in participant, reference standard, and flow and timing domains. All studies were in hospital settings. Prevalence was 16% (RMI, ROMA), 22% (LR2) and 27% (ADNEX) in premenopausal women and 38% (RMI), 45% (ROMA), 52% (LR2) and 55% (ADNEX) in postmenopausal women. The prevalence of OC in the studies was considerably higher than would be expected in symptomatic women presenting in community-based settings, or in women referred from the community to hospital with a suspicion of OC. Studies were at high or unclear applicability because presenting features were not reported, or USS was performed by experienced ultrasonographers for RMI, LR2 and ADNEX. The higher sensitivity and lower specificity observed in postmenopausal compared to premenopausal women across all index tests and at all thresholds may reflect highly selected patient cohorts in the included studies. In premenopausal women, ROMA at a threshold of 13.1 (± 2), LR2 at a threshold to achieve a post-test probability of OC of 10% and ADNEX (post-test probability 10%) demonstrated a higher sensitivity (ROMA: 77.4%, 95% CI 72.7% to 81.5%; LR2: 83.3%, 95% CI 74.7% to 89.5%; ADNEX: 95.5%, 95% CI 91.0% to 97.8%) compared to RMI (57.2%, 95% CI 50.3% to 63.8%). The specificity of ROMA and ADNEX were lower in premenopausal women (ROMA: 84.3%, 95% CI 81.2% to 87.0%; ADNEX: 77.8%, 95% CI 67.4% to 85.5%) compared to RMI 92.5% (95% CI 90.3% to 94.2%). The specificity of LR2 was comparable to RMI (90.4%, 95% CI 84.6% to 94.1%). In postmenopausal women, ROMA at a threshold of 27.7 (± 2), LR2 (post-test probability 10%) and ADNEX (post-test probability 10%) demonstrated a higher sensitivity (ROMA: 90.3%, 95% CI 87.5% to 92.6%; LR2: 94.8%, 95% CI 92.3% to 96.6%; ADNEX: 97.6%, 95% CI 95.6% to 98.7%) compared to RMI (78.4%, 95% CI 74.6% to 81.7%). Specificity of ROMA at a threshold of 27.7 (± 2) (81.5, 95% CI 76.5% to 85.5%) was comparable to RMI (85.4%, 95% CI 82.0% to 88.2%), whereas for LR2 (post-test probability 10%) and ADNEX (post-test probability 10%) specificity was lower (LR2: 60.6%, 95% CI 50.5% to 69.9%; ADNEX: 55.0%, 95% CI 42.8% to 66.6%). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS In specialist healthcare settings in both premenopausal and postmenopausal women, RMI has poor sensitivity. In premenopausal women, ROMA, LR2 and ADNEX offer better sensitivity (fewer missed cancers), but for ROMA and ADNEX this is off-set by a decrease in specificity and increase in false positives. In postmenopausal women, ROMA demonstrates a higher sensitivity and comparable specificity to RMI. ADNEX has the highest sensitivity in postmenopausal women, but reduced specificity. The prevalence of OC in included studies is representative of a highly selected referred population, rather than a population in whom referral is being considered. The comparative accuracy of tests observed here may not be transferable to non-specialist settings. Ultimately health systems need to balance accuracy and resource implications to identify the most suitable test.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Clare Davenport
- Test Evaluation Research Group, Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - Nirmala Rai
- School of Cancer Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - Pawana Sharma
- Test Evaluation Research Group, Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - Jonathan J Deeks
- Test Evaluation Research Group, Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - Sarah Berhane
- NIHR Birmingham Biomedical Research Centre, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust and University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - Sue Mallett
- UCL Centre for Medical Imaging, Division of Medicine, Faculty of Medical Sciences, University College London, London, UK
| | - Pratyusha Saha
- Medical School, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - Rita Champaneria
- Systematic Review Initiative, NHS Blood and Transplant, Oxford, UK
| | - Susan E Bayliss
- Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - Kym Ie Snell
- Centre for Prognosis Research, School of Primary, Community and Social Care, Keele University, Keele, UK
| | - Sudha Sundar
- School of Cancer Sciences, University of Birmingham , Birmingham, UK
| |
Collapse
|
18
|
Jha P, Gupta A, Baran TM, Maturen KE, Patel-Lippmann K, Zafar HM, Kamaya A, Antil N, Barroilhet L, Sadowski EA. Diagnostic Performance of the Ovarian-Adnexal Reporting and Data System (O-RADS) Ultrasound Risk Score in Women in the United States. JAMA Netw Open 2022; 5:e2216370. [PMID: 35679042 PMCID: PMC9185186 DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.16370] [Citation(s) in RCA: 29] [Impact Index Per Article: 14.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/01/2023] Open
Abstract
IMPORTANCE The American College of Radiology (ACR) Ovarian-Adnexal Reporting and Data System (O-RADS) ultrasound (US) risk scoring system has been studied in a selected population of women referred for suspected or known adnexal lesions. This population has a higher frequency of malignant neoplasms than women presenting to radiology departments for pelvic ultrasonography for a variety of indications, potentially impacting the diagnostic performance of the risk scoring system. OBJECTIVE To evaluate the risk of malignant neoplasm and diagnostic performance of O-RADS US risk scoring system in a multi-institutional, nonselected cohort. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS This multi-institutional cohort study included a population of nonselected women in the United States who presented to radiology departments for routine pelvic ultrasonography between 2011 and 2014, with pathology confirmation imaging follow up or 2 years of clinical follow up. EXPOSURE Analysis of 1014 adnexal lesions using the O-RADS US risk stratification system. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Frequency of ovarian cancer and diagnostic performance of the O-RADS US risk stratification system. RESULTS This study included 913 women with 1014 adnexal lesions. The mean (SD) age of the patients was 42.4 (13.9 years), and 674 of 913 (73.8%) were premenopausal. The overall frequency of malignant neoplasm was 8.4% (85 of 1014 adnexal lesions). The frequency of malignant neoplasm for O-RADS US 2 was 0.5% (3 of 657 lesions; <1% expected); O-RADS US 3, 4.5% (5 of 112 lesions; <10% expected); O-RADS US 4, 11.6% (18 of 155; 10%-50% expected); and O-RADS 5, 65.6% (59 of 90 lesions; >50% expected). O-RADS US 4 was the optimum cutoff for diagnosing cancer with sensitivity of 90.6% (95% CI, 82.3%-95.9%), specificity of 81.9% (95% CI, 79.3%-84.3%), positive predictive value of 31.4% (95% CI, 25.7%-37.7%) and negative predictive value of 99.0% (95% CI, 98.0%-99.6%). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this cohort study of a nonselected patient population, the O-RADS US risk stratification system performed within the expected range as published by the ACR O-RADS US committee. The frequency of malignant neoplasm was at the lower end of the published range, partially because of the lower prevalence of cancer in a nonselected population. However, a high negative predictive value was maintained, and when a lesion can be classified as an O-RADS US 2, the risk of cancer is low, which is reassuring for both clinician and patient.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Priyanka Jha
- University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco
| | | | | | | | | | | | - Aya Kamaya
- Stanford University, Stanford, California
| | - Neha Antil
- Stanford University, Stanford, California
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
19
|
Hack K, Gandhi N, Bouchard-Fortier G, Chawla TP, Ferguson SE, Li S, Kahn D, Tyrrell PN, Glanc P. External Validation of O-RADS US Risk Stratification and Management System. Radiology 2022; 304:114-120. [PMID: 35438559 DOI: 10.1148/radiol.211868] [Citation(s) in RCA: 17] [Impact Index Per Article: 8.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/16/2023]
Abstract
Background The Ovarian-Adnexal Reporting and Data System (O-RADS) US risk stratification and management system (O-RADS US) was designed to improve risk assessment and management of ovarian and adnexal lesions. Validation studies including both surgical and nonsurgical treatment as the reference standard remain lacking. Purpose To externally validate O-RADS US in women who underwent either surgical or nonsurgical treatment and to determine if incorporating acoustic shadowing as a benign finding improves diagnostic performance. Materials and Methods This retrospective study included consecutive women who underwent pelvic US between August 2015 and April 2017 at a tertiary referral oncology center. Two independent readers blinded to clinical and histologic outcome assigned an O-RADS risk category and an International Ovarian Tumor Analysis (IOTA) Assessment of Different NEoplasias in the adneXa (ADNEX) model risk of malignancy score to assessable lesions. Reference standards were surgical histopathology or 2-year imaging follow-up. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was used to evaluate performance of the O-RADS US, ADNEX, and modified O-RADS models incorporating acoustic shadowing. Results In total, 227 women (mean age, 52 years ± 16 [SD]) with 262 ovarian or adnexal lesions were evaluated. Of these lesions, 187 (71%) were benign and 75 (29%) were malignant. The proportion of malignancy was 0% (0 of 100) for O-RADS 2, 3% (one of 32) for O-RADS 3, 35% (22 of 63) for O-RADS 4, and 78% (52 of 67) for O-RADS 5. The area under the ROC curve (AUC) for O-RADS and ADNEX was 0.91 (95% CI: 0.88, 0.94) and 0.95 (95% CI: 0.92, 0.97; P = .01), respectively. The addition of acoustic shadowing as a benign finding improved O-RADS AUC to 0.94 (95% CI: 0.91, 0.96; P = .01). Use of O-RADS 4 as a threshold yielded a sensitivity of 99% (74 of 75; 95% CI: 96, 100) and a specificity of 70% (131 of 187; 95% CI: 64, 77). Conclusion In a tertiary referral oncology center, the Ovarian-Adnexal Reporting and Data System US risk stratification and management system enabled accurate distinction of benign from malignant ovarian and adnexal lesions. Adding acoustic shadowing as a benign finding improved its diagnostic performance. © RSNA, 2022 See also the editorial by Levine in this issue.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kalesha Hack
- From the Department of Medical Imaging, University of Toronto, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, 2075 Bayview Ave, MG-130c, Toronto, ON, Canada M4N 3M5 (K.H.); Department of Medical Imaging, Peterborough Regional Health Centre, Peterborough, ON, Canada (N.G.); Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Gynecologic Oncology, University of Toronto, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre/University Health Network and Sinai Health System, Toronto, ON, Canada (G.B.F.); Department of Medical Imaging, University of Toronto, Division of Abdominal Imaging, Joint Department of Medical Imaging, Toronto, ON, Canada (T.P.C.); Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Toronto, Ontario Health-Cancer Care Ontario, Division of Gynecologic Oncology, University Health Network and Sinai Health System, Toronto, ON, Canada (S.E.F.); Department of Medical Imaging and Department of Statistical Sciences, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada (S.L.); Department of Business Administration, Wilfrid Laurier University, Waterloo, ON, Canada (D.K.); Department of Medical Imaging, Department of Statistical Sciences, and Institute of Medical Science, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada (P.N.T.); and Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Toronto, Sunnybrook Research Institute, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Department of Medical Imaging, Body Division, Toronto, ON, Canada (P.G.)
| | - Niket Gandhi
- From the Department of Medical Imaging, University of Toronto, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, 2075 Bayview Ave, MG-130c, Toronto, ON, Canada M4N 3M5 (K.H.); Department of Medical Imaging, Peterborough Regional Health Centre, Peterborough, ON, Canada (N.G.); Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Gynecologic Oncology, University of Toronto, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre/University Health Network and Sinai Health System, Toronto, ON, Canada (G.B.F.); Department of Medical Imaging, University of Toronto, Division of Abdominal Imaging, Joint Department of Medical Imaging, Toronto, ON, Canada (T.P.C.); Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Toronto, Ontario Health-Cancer Care Ontario, Division of Gynecologic Oncology, University Health Network and Sinai Health System, Toronto, ON, Canada (S.E.F.); Department of Medical Imaging and Department of Statistical Sciences, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada (S.L.); Department of Business Administration, Wilfrid Laurier University, Waterloo, ON, Canada (D.K.); Department of Medical Imaging, Department of Statistical Sciences, and Institute of Medical Science, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada (P.N.T.); and Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Toronto, Sunnybrook Research Institute, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Department of Medical Imaging, Body Division, Toronto, ON, Canada (P.G.)
| | - Genevieve Bouchard-Fortier
- From the Department of Medical Imaging, University of Toronto, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, 2075 Bayview Ave, MG-130c, Toronto, ON, Canada M4N 3M5 (K.H.); Department of Medical Imaging, Peterborough Regional Health Centre, Peterborough, ON, Canada (N.G.); Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Gynecologic Oncology, University of Toronto, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre/University Health Network and Sinai Health System, Toronto, ON, Canada (G.B.F.); Department of Medical Imaging, University of Toronto, Division of Abdominal Imaging, Joint Department of Medical Imaging, Toronto, ON, Canada (T.P.C.); Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Toronto, Ontario Health-Cancer Care Ontario, Division of Gynecologic Oncology, University Health Network and Sinai Health System, Toronto, ON, Canada (S.E.F.); Department of Medical Imaging and Department of Statistical Sciences, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada (S.L.); Department of Business Administration, Wilfrid Laurier University, Waterloo, ON, Canada (D.K.); Department of Medical Imaging, Department of Statistical Sciences, and Institute of Medical Science, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada (P.N.T.); and Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Toronto, Sunnybrook Research Institute, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Department of Medical Imaging, Body Division, Toronto, ON, Canada (P.G.)
| | - Tanya P Chawla
- From the Department of Medical Imaging, University of Toronto, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, 2075 Bayview Ave, MG-130c, Toronto, ON, Canada M4N 3M5 (K.H.); Department of Medical Imaging, Peterborough Regional Health Centre, Peterborough, ON, Canada (N.G.); Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Gynecologic Oncology, University of Toronto, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre/University Health Network and Sinai Health System, Toronto, ON, Canada (G.B.F.); Department of Medical Imaging, University of Toronto, Division of Abdominal Imaging, Joint Department of Medical Imaging, Toronto, ON, Canada (T.P.C.); Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Toronto, Ontario Health-Cancer Care Ontario, Division of Gynecologic Oncology, University Health Network and Sinai Health System, Toronto, ON, Canada (S.E.F.); Department of Medical Imaging and Department of Statistical Sciences, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada (S.L.); Department of Business Administration, Wilfrid Laurier University, Waterloo, ON, Canada (D.K.); Department of Medical Imaging, Department of Statistical Sciences, and Institute of Medical Science, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada (P.N.T.); and Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Toronto, Sunnybrook Research Institute, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Department of Medical Imaging, Body Division, Toronto, ON, Canada (P.G.)
| | - Sarah E Ferguson
- From the Department of Medical Imaging, University of Toronto, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, 2075 Bayview Ave, MG-130c, Toronto, ON, Canada M4N 3M5 (K.H.); Department of Medical Imaging, Peterborough Regional Health Centre, Peterborough, ON, Canada (N.G.); Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Gynecologic Oncology, University of Toronto, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre/University Health Network and Sinai Health System, Toronto, ON, Canada (G.B.F.); Department of Medical Imaging, University of Toronto, Division of Abdominal Imaging, Joint Department of Medical Imaging, Toronto, ON, Canada (T.P.C.); Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Toronto, Ontario Health-Cancer Care Ontario, Division of Gynecologic Oncology, University Health Network and Sinai Health System, Toronto, ON, Canada (S.E.F.); Department of Medical Imaging and Department of Statistical Sciences, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada (S.L.); Department of Business Administration, Wilfrid Laurier University, Waterloo, ON, Canada (D.K.); Department of Medical Imaging, Department of Statistical Sciences, and Institute of Medical Science, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada (P.N.T.); and Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Toronto, Sunnybrook Research Institute, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Department of Medical Imaging, Body Division, Toronto, ON, Canada (P.G.)
| | - Siying Li
- From the Department of Medical Imaging, University of Toronto, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, 2075 Bayview Ave, MG-130c, Toronto, ON, Canada M4N 3M5 (K.H.); Department of Medical Imaging, Peterborough Regional Health Centre, Peterborough, ON, Canada (N.G.); Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Gynecologic Oncology, University of Toronto, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre/University Health Network and Sinai Health System, Toronto, ON, Canada (G.B.F.); Department of Medical Imaging, University of Toronto, Division of Abdominal Imaging, Joint Department of Medical Imaging, Toronto, ON, Canada (T.P.C.); Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Toronto, Ontario Health-Cancer Care Ontario, Division of Gynecologic Oncology, University Health Network and Sinai Health System, Toronto, ON, Canada (S.E.F.); Department of Medical Imaging and Department of Statistical Sciences, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada (S.L.); Department of Business Administration, Wilfrid Laurier University, Waterloo, ON, Canada (D.K.); Department of Medical Imaging, Department of Statistical Sciences, and Institute of Medical Science, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada (P.N.T.); and Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Toronto, Sunnybrook Research Institute, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Department of Medical Imaging, Body Division, Toronto, ON, Canada (P.G.)
| | - Daniel Kahn
- From the Department of Medical Imaging, University of Toronto, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, 2075 Bayview Ave, MG-130c, Toronto, ON, Canada M4N 3M5 (K.H.); Department of Medical Imaging, Peterborough Regional Health Centre, Peterborough, ON, Canada (N.G.); Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Gynecologic Oncology, University of Toronto, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre/University Health Network and Sinai Health System, Toronto, ON, Canada (G.B.F.); Department of Medical Imaging, University of Toronto, Division of Abdominal Imaging, Joint Department of Medical Imaging, Toronto, ON, Canada (T.P.C.); Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Toronto, Ontario Health-Cancer Care Ontario, Division of Gynecologic Oncology, University Health Network and Sinai Health System, Toronto, ON, Canada (S.E.F.); Department of Medical Imaging and Department of Statistical Sciences, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada (S.L.); Department of Business Administration, Wilfrid Laurier University, Waterloo, ON, Canada (D.K.); Department of Medical Imaging, Department of Statistical Sciences, and Institute of Medical Science, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada (P.N.T.); and Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Toronto, Sunnybrook Research Institute, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Department of Medical Imaging, Body Division, Toronto, ON, Canada (P.G.)
| | - Pascal N Tyrrell
- From the Department of Medical Imaging, University of Toronto, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, 2075 Bayview Ave, MG-130c, Toronto, ON, Canada M4N 3M5 (K.H.); Department of Medical Imaging, Peterborough Regional Health Centre, Peterborough, ON, Canada (N.G.); Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Gynecologic Oncology, University of Toronto, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre/University Health Network and Sinai Health System, Toronto, ON, Canada (G.B.F.); Department of Medical Imaging, University of Toronto, Division of Abdominal Imaging, Joint Department of Medical Imaging, Toronto, ON, Canada (T.P.C.); Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Toronto, Ontario Health-Cancer Care Ontario, Division of Gynecologic Oncology, University Health Network and Sinai Health System, Toronto, ON, Canada (S.E.F.); Department of Medical Imaging and Department of Statistical Sciences, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada (S.L.); Department of Business Administration, Wilfrid Laurier University, Waterloo, ON, Canada (D.K.); Department of Medical Imaging, Department of Statistical Sciences, and Institute of Medical Science, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada (P.N.T.); and Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Toronto, Sunnybrook Research Institute, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Department of Medical Imaging, Body Division, Toronto, ON, Canada (P.G.)
| | - Phyllis Glanc
- From the Department of Medical Imaging, University of Toronto, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, 2075 Bayview Ave, MG-130c, Toronto, ON, Canada M4N 3M5 (K.H.); Department of Medical Imaging, Peterborough Regional Health Centre, Peterborough, ON, Canada (N.G.); Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Gynecologic Oncology, University of Toronto, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre/University Health Network and Sinai Health System, Toronto, ON, Canada (G.B.F.); Department of Medical Imaging, University of Toronto, Division of Abdominal Imaging, Joint Department of Medical Imaging, Toronto, ON, Canada (T.P.C.); Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Toronto, Ontario Health-Cancer Care Ontario, Division of Gynecologic Oncology, University Health Network and Sinai Health System, Toronto, ON, Canada (S.E.F.); Department of Medical Imaging and Department of Statistical Sciences, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada (S.L.); Department of Business Administration, Wilfrid Laurier University, Waterloo, ON, Canada (D.K.); Department of Medical Imaging, Department of Statistical Sciences, and Institute of Medical Science, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada (P.N.T.); and Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Toronto, Sunnybrook Research Institute, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Department of Medical Imaging, Body Division, Toronto, ON, Canada (P.G.)
| |
Collapse
|
20
|
Gupta A, Jha P, Baran TM, Maturen KE, Patel-Lippmann K, Zafar HM, Kamaya A, Antil N, Barroilhet L, Sadowski E. Ovarian Cancer Detection in Average-Risk Women: Classic- versus Nonclassic-appearing Adnexal Lesions at US. Radiology 2022; 303:603-610. [PMID: 35315722 DOI: 10.1148/radiol.212338] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/06/2023]
Abstract
Background Several US risk stratification schemas for assessing adnexal lesions exist. These multiple-subcategory systems may be more multifaceted than necessary for isolated adnexal lesions in average-risk women. Purpose To explore whether a US-based classification scheme of classic versus nonclassic appearance can be used to help appropriately triage women at average risk of ovarian cancer without compromising diagnostic performance. Materials and Methods This retrospective multicenter study included isolated ovarian lesions identified at pelvic US performed between January 2011 and June 2014, reviewed between September 2019 and September 2020. Lesions were considered isolated in the absence of ascites or peritoneal implants. Lesions were classified as classic or nonclassic based on sonographic appearance. Classic lesions included simple cysts, hemorrhagic cysts, endometriomas, and dermoids. Otherwise, lesions were considered nonclassic. Outcomes based on histopathologic results or clinical or imaging follow-up were recorded. Diagnostic performance and frequency of malignancy were calculated. Frequency of malignancy between age groups was compared using the χ2 test, and Poisson regression was used to explore relationships between imaging features and malignancy. Results A total of 970 isolated lesions in 878 women (mean age, 42 years ± 14 [SD]) were included. The malignancy rate for classic lesions was less than 1%. Of 970 lesions, 53 (6%) were malignant. The malignancy rate for nonclassic lesions was 32% (33 of 103) when blood flow was present and 8% (16 of 194) without blood flow (P < .001). For women older than 60 years, the malignancy rate was 50% (10 of 20 lesions) when blood flow was present and 13% (five of 38) without blood flow (P = .004). The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of the classic-versus-nonclassic schema was 93% (49 of 53 lesions), 73% (669 of 917 lesions), 17% (49 of 297 lesions), and 99% (669 of 673 lesions), respectively, for detection of malignancy. Conclusion Using a US classification schema of classic- or nonclassic-appearing adnexal lesions resulted in high sensitivity and specificity in the diagnosis of malignancy in ovarian cancer. The highest risk of cancer was in isolated nonclassic lesions with blood flow in women older than 60 years. © RSNA, 2022 See also the editorial by Baumgarten in this issue.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Akshya Gupta
- From the Department of Imaging Sciences, University of Rochester Medical Center, 601 Elmwood Ave, Box 648, Rochester, NY 14620 (A.G., T.M.B.); Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, Calif (P.J.); Department of Radiology, University of Michigan Health System, Ann Arbor, Mich (K.E.M.); Department of Radiology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn (K.P.L.); Department of Radiology, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pa (H.M.Z.); Department of Radiology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, Calif (A.K., N.A.); and Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology (L.B.) and Department of Radiology (E.S.), University of Wisconsin-Madison School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, Wis
| | - Priyanka Jha
- From the Department of Imaging Sciences, University of Rochester Medical Center, 601 Elmwood Ave, Box 648, Rochester, NY 14620 (A.G., T.M.B.); Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, Calif (P.J.); Department of Radiology, University of Michigan Health System, Ann Arbor, Mich (K.E.M.); Department of Radiology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn (K.P.L.); Department of Radiology, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pa (H.M.Z.); Department of Radiology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, Calif (A.K., N.A.); and Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology (L.B.) and Department of Radiology (E.S.), University of Wisconsin-Madison School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, Wis
| | - Timothy M Baran
- From the Department of Imaging Sciences, University of Rochester Medical Center, 601 Elmwood Ave, Box 648, Rochester, NY 14620 (A.G., T.M.B.); Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, Calif (P.J.); Department of Radiology, University of Michigan Health System, Ann Arbor, Mich (K.E.M.); Department of Radiology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn (K.P.L.); Department of Radiology, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pa (H.M.Z.); Department of Radiology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, Calif (A.K., N.A.); and Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology (L.B.) and Department of Radiology (E.S.), University of Wisconsin-Madison School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, Wis
| | - Katherine E Maturen
- From the Department of Imaging Sciences, University of Rochester Medical Center, 601 Elmwood Ave, Box 648, Rochester, NY 14620 (A.G., T.M.B.); Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, Calif (P.J.); Department of Radiology, University of Michigan Health System, Ann Arbor, Mich (K.E.M.); Department of Radiology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn (K.P.L.); Department of Radiology, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pa (H.M.Z.); Department of Radiology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, Calif (A.K., N.A.); and Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology (L.B.) and Department of Radiology (E.S.), University of Wisconsin-Madison School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, Wis
| | - Krupa Patel-Lippmann
- From the Department of Imaging Sciences, University of Rochester Medical Center, 601 Elmwood Ave, Box 648, Rochester, NY 14620 (A.G., T.M.B.); Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, Calif (P.J.); Department of Radiology, University of Michigan Health System, Ann Arbor, Mich (K.E.M.); Department of Radiology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn (K.P.L.); Department of Radiology, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pa (H.M.Z.); Department of Radiology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, Calif (A.K., N.A.); and Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology (L.B.) and Department of Radiology (E.S.), University of Wisconsin-Madison School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, Wis
| | - Hanna M Zafar
- From the Department of Imaging Sciences, University of Rochester Medical Center, 601 Elmwood Ave, Box 648, Rochester, NY 14620 (A.G., T.M.B.); Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, Calif (P.J.); Department of Radiology, University of Michigan Health System, Ann Arbor, Mich (K.E.M.); Department of Radiology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn (K.P.L.); Department of Radiology, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pa (H.M.Z.); Department of Radiology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, Calif (A.K., N.A.); and Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology (L.B.) and Department of Radiology (E.S.), University of Wisconsin-Madison School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, Wis
| | - Aya Kamaya
- From the Department of Imaging Sciences, University of Rochester Medical Center, 601 Elmwood Ave, Box 648, Rochester, NY 14620 (A.G., T.M.B.); Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, Calif (P.J.); Department of Radiology, University of Michigan Health System, Ann Arbor, Mich (K.E.M.); Department of Radiology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn (K.P.L.); Department of Radiology, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pa (H.M.Z.); Department of Radiology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, Calif (A.K., N.A.); and Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology (L.B.) and Department of Radiology (E.S.), University of Wisconsin-Madison School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, Wis
| | - Neha Antil
- From the Department of Imaging Sciences, University of Rochester Medical Center, 601 Elmwood Ave, Box 648, Rochester, NY 14620 (A.G., T.M.B.); Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, Calif (P.J.); Department of Radiology, University of Michigan Health System, Ann Arbor, Mich (K.E.M.); Department of Radiology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn (K.P.L.); Department of Radiology, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pa (H.M.Z.); Department of Radiology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, Calif (A.K., N.A.); and Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology (L.B.) and Department of Radiology (E.S.), University of Wisconsin-Madison School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, Wis
| | - Lisa Barroilhet
- From the Department of Imaging Sciences, University of Rochester Medical Center, 601 Elmwood Ave, Box 648, Rochester, NY 14620 (A.G., T.M.B.); Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, Calif (P.J.); Department of Radiology, University of Michigan Health System, Ann Arbor, Mich (K.E.M.); Department of Radiology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn (K.P.L.); Department of Radiology, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pa (H.M.Z.); Department of Radiology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, Calif (A.K., N.A.); and Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology (L.B.) and Department of Radiology (E.S.), University of Wisconsin-Madison School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, Wis
| | - Elizabeth Sadowski
- From the Department of Imaging Sciences, University of Rochester Medical Center, 601 Elmwood Ave, Box 648, Rochester, NY 14620 (A.G., T.M.B.); Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, Calif (P.J.); Department of Radiology, University of Michigan Health System, Ann Arbor, Mich (K.E.M.); Department of Radiology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn (K.P.L.); Department of Radiology, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pa (H.M.Z.); Department of Radiology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, Calif (A.K., N.A.); and Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology (L.B.) and Department of Radiology (E.S.), University of Wisconsin-Madison School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, Wis
| |
Collapse
|
21
|
Assessment of egg and milk allergies among Indians by revalidating a food allergy predictive model. World Allergy Organ J 2022; 15:100639. [PMID: 35399818 PMCID: PMC8956949 DOI: 10.1016/j.waojou.2022.100639] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/26/2021] [Revised: 12/10/2021] [Accepted: 02/21/2022] [Indexed: 12/24/2022] Open
|
22
|
Ciccarone F, Biscione A, Moro F, Fischerova D, Savelli L, Munaretto M, Jokubkiene L, Sladkevicius P, Chiappa V, Fruscio R, Franchi D, Epstein E, Timmerman D, Froyman W, Valentin L, Scambia G, Testa AC. Imaging in gynecological disease (23): clinical and ultrasound characteristics of ovarian carcinosarcoma. ULTRASOUND IN OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY : THE OFFICIAL JOURNAL OF THE INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY OF ULTRASOUND IN OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY 2022; 59:241-247. [PMID: 34225386 DOI: 10.1002/uog.23733] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/09/2021] [Revised: 06/22/2021] [Accepted: 06/23/2021] [Indexed: 06/13/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To describe the clinical and ultrasound characteristics of ovarian carcinosarcoma. METHODS This was a retrospective multicenter study. Patients with a histological diagnosis of ovarian carcinosarcoma, who had undergone preoperative ultrasound examination between 2010 and 2019, were identified from the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis (IOTA) database. Additional patients who were examined outside of the IOTA study were identified from the databases of the participating centers. The masses were described using the terms and definitions of the IOTA group. Additionally, two experienced ultrasound examiners reviewed all available images to identify typical ultrasound features using pattern recognition. RESULTS Ninety-one patients with ovarian carcinosarcoma who had undergone ultrasound examination were identified, of whom 24 were examined within the IOTA studies and 67 were examined outside of the IOTA studies. Median age at diagnosis was 66 (range, 33-91) years and 84/91 (92.3%) patients were postmenopausal. Most patients (67/91, 73.6%) were symptomatic, with the most common complaint being pain (51/91, 56.0%). Most tumors (67/91, 73.6%) were International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) Stage III or IV. Bilateral lesions were observed on ultrasound in 46/91 (50.5%) patients. Ascites was present in 38/91 (41.8%) patients. The median largest tumor diameter was 100 (range, 18-260) mm. All ovarian carcinosarcomas contained solid components, and most were described as solid (66/91, 72.5%) or multilocular-solid (22/91, 24.2%). The median diameter of the largest solid component was 77.5 (range, 11-238) mm. Moderate or rich vascularization was found in 78/91 (85.7%) cases. Retrospective analysis of ultrasound images and videoclips using pattern recognition in 73 cases revealed that all tumors had irregular margins and inhomogeneous echogenicity of the solid components. Forty-seven of 73 (64.4%) masses appeared as a solid tumor with cystic areas. Cooked appearance of the solid tissue was identified in 28/73 (38.4%) tumors. No pathognomonic ultrasound sign of ovarian carcinosarcoma was found. CONCLUSIONS Ovarian carcinosarcomas are usually diagnosed in postmenopausal women and at an advanced stage. The most common ultrasound appearance is a large solid tumor with irregular margins, inhomogeneous echogenicity of the solid tissue and cystic areas. The second most common pattern is a large multilocular-solid mass with inhomogeneous echogenicity of the solid tissue. © 2021 International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- F Ciccarone
- Dipartimento Scienze della Salute della Donna, del Bambino e di Sanità Pubblica, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli, IRCCS, Rome, Italy
| | - A Biscione
- Dipartimento Scienze della Salute della Donna, del Bambino e di Sanità Pubblica, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli, IRCCS, Rome, Italy
| | - F Moro
- Dipartimento Scienze della Salute della Donna, del Bambino e di Sanità Pubblica, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli, IRCCS, Rome, Italy
| | - D Fischerova
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic
| | - L Savelli
- Gynecologic and Obstetric Unit, Women's and Children's Department, Forlì Hospital, Forlì, Italy
| | - M Munaretto
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, S. Orsola-Malpighi Hospital, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy
| | - L Jokubkiene
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Skåne University Hospital, Malmö, Sweden
- Department of Clinical Sciences Malmö, Lund University, Lund, Sweden
| | - P Sladkevicius
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Skåne University Hospital, Malmö, Sweden
- Department of Clinical Sciences Malmö, Lund University, Lund, Sweden
| | - V Chiappa
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology, IRCCS National Cancer Institute, Milan, Italy
| | - R Fruscio
- Clinic of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Milano-Bicocca, Department of Medicine and Surgery, San Gerardo Hospital, Monza, Italy
| | - D Franchi
- Gynecologic Oncology Unit, Division of Gynecology, IEO, European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy
| | - E Epstein
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - D Timmerman
- Department of Development and Regeneration, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
| | - W Froyman
- Department of Development and Regeneration, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
| | - L Valentin
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Skåne University Hospital, Malmö, Sweden
- Department of Clinical Sciences Malmö, Lund University, Lund, Sweden
| | - G Scambia
- Dipartimento Scienze della Salute della Donna, del Bambino e di Sanità Pubblica, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli, IRCCS, Rome, Italy
- Dipartimento Scienze della Vita e Sanità Pubblica, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome, Italy
| | - A C Testa
- Dipartimento Scienze della Salute della Donna, del Bambino e di Sanità Pubblica, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli, IRCCS, Rome, Italy
- Dipartimento Scienze della Vita e Sanità Pubblica, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
23
|
Gao B, Zhao X, Gu P, Sun D, Liu X, Li W, Zhang A, Peng E, Xu D. A nomogram model based on clinical markers for predicting malignancy of ovarian tumors. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne) 2022; 13:963559. [PMID: 36506042 PMCID: PMC9729545 DOI: 10.3389/fendo.2022.963559] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/07/2022] [Accepted: 11/04/2022] [Indexed: 11/25/2022] Open
Abstract
OBJECTIVE The aim of this study was to build a nomogram based on clinical markers for predicting the malignancy of ovarian tumors (OTs). METHOD A total of 1,268 patients diagnosed with OTs that were surgically removed between October 2017 and May 2019 were enrolled. Clinical markers such as post-menopausal status, body mass index (BMI), serum human epididymis protein 4 (HE4) value, cancer antigen 125 (CA125) value, Risk of Ovarian Malignancy Algorithm (ROMA) index, course of disease, patient-generated subjective global assessment (PG-SGA) score, ascites, and locations and features of masses were recorded and analyzed (p 0.05). Significant variables were further selected using multivariate logistic regression analysis and were included in the decision curve analysis (DCA) used to assess the value of the nomogram model for predicting OT malignancy. RESULT The significant variables included post-menopausal status, BMI, HE4 value, CA125 value, ROMA index, course of disease, PG-SGA score, ascites, and features and locations of masses (p 0.05). The ROMA index, BMI (≥ 26), unclear/blurred mass boundary (on magnetic resonance imaging [MRI]/computed tomography [CT]), mass detection (on MRI/CT), and mass size and features (on type B ultrasound [BUS]) were screened out for multivariate logistic regression analysis to assess the value of the nomogram model for predicting OT malignant risk (p 0.05). The DCA revealed that the net benefit of the nomogram's calculation model was superior to that of the CA125 value, HE4 value, and ROMA index for predicting OT malignancy. CONCLUSION We successfully tailored a nomogram model based on selected clinical markers which showed superior prognostic predictive accuracy compared with the use of the CA125, HE4, or ROMA index (that combines both HE and CA125 values) for predicting the malignancy of OT patients.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Bingsi Gao
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, The Third Xiangya Hospital of Central South University, Changsha, Hunan, China
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, The Obstetrics and Gynecology Hospital of Fudan University, Shanghai, China
| | - Xingping Zhao
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, The Third Xiangya Hospital of Central South University, Changsha, Hunan, China
| | - Pan Gu
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, The Third Xiangya Hospital of Central South University, Changsha, Hunan, China
| | - Dan Sun
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, The Third Xiangya Hospital of Central South University, Changsha, Hunan, China
| | - Xinyi Liu
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Hunan Provincial Maternal and Child Health Hospital, Changsha, Hunan, China
| | - Waixing Li
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, The Third Xiangya Hospital of Central South University, Changsha, Hunan, China
| | - Aiqian Zhang
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, The Third Xiangya Hospital of Central South University, Changsha, Hunan, China
| | - Enuo Peng
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, The Third Xiangya Hospital of Central South University, Changsha, Hunan, China
- *Correspondence: Enuo Peng, ; Dabao Xu,
| | - Dabao Xu
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, The Third Xiangya Hospital of Central South University, Changsha, Hunan, China
- *Correspondence: Enuo Peng, ; Dabao Xu,
| |
Collapse
|
24
|
External Validation of the IOTA Classification in Women with Ovarian Masses Suspected to Be Endometrioma. J Clin Med 2021; 10:jcm10132971. [PMID: 34279456 PMCID: PMC8269298 DOI: 10.3390/jcm10132971] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/30/2021] [Revised: 06/24/2021] [Accepted: 06/27/2021] [Indexed: 01/04/2023] Open
Abstract
The study aimed to perform external validation of the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis (IOTA) classification of adnexal masses as benign or malignant in women with suspected endometrioma. A retrospective study including women referred to an endometriosis tertiary referral center for dedicated transvaginal ultrasound (TVUS). Adnexal masses were evaluated using the IOTA classification simple descriptors, simple rules and expert opinion. The reference standard was definitive histology after mass removal at laparoscopy. In total, 621 women were evaluated and divided into four groups: endometrioma on TVUS and confirmed on surgery (Group 1 = 181), endometrioma on TVUS but other benign cysts on surgery (Group 2 = 9), other cysts on TVUS but endometrioma on surgery (Group 3 = 2), masses classified as other findings or suspicious for malignancy on TVUS and confirmed on surgery (Group 4 = 5 potentially malignant, 11 benign). This gave a sensitivity 98.9%, specificity 64%, positive 95.3% and negative 88.9% predictive values, positive 2.74 and negative 0.02 likelihood ratios and 94.7% overall accuracy. The surgical diagnosis for the five masses suspected to be malignant was: borderline serous tumor (2), borderline mucinous tumor (2), and endometrioid lesion with complex hyperplasia without atypia (1). The conclusions were that the IOTA classification simple descriptors, simple rules and expert opinion performs well for classifying adnexal masses suspected to be endometrioma. The most common potentially malignant masses in these women were borderline ovarian tumors.
Collapse
|
25
|
Moro F, Esposito R, Landolfo C, Froyman W, Timmerman D, Bourne T, Scambia G, Valentin L, Testa AC. Ultrasound evaluation of ovarian masses and assessment of the extension of ovarian malignancy. Br J Radiol 2021; 94:20201375. [PMID: 34106762 DOI: 10.1259/bjr.20201375] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/07/2023] Open
Abstract
The current review sums up the literature on the diagnostic performance of models to predict malignancy in adnexal masses and the ability of ultrasound to make a specific diagnosis in adnexal masses. A summary of the role of ultrasound in assessing the extension of malignant ovarian disease is also provided.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Francesca Moro
- Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli, IRCCS, Dipartimento Scienze della Salute della Donna, del Bambino e di Sanità Pubblica, Roma, Italia
| | - Rosanna Esposito
- Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli, IRCCS, Dipartimento Scienze della Salute della Donna, del Bambino e di Sanità Pubblica, Roma, Italia
| | - Chiara Landolfo
- Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli, IRCCS, Dipartimento Scienze della Salute della Donna, del Bambino e di Sanità Pubblica, Roma, Italia.,Department of Development and Regeneration, KU Leuven, Belgium.,Queen Charlotte's and Chelsea Hospital, Imperial College, London, UK
| | - Wouter Froyman
- Department of Development and Regeneration, KU Leuven, Belgium.,Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
| | - Dirk Timmerman
- Department of Development and Regeneration, KU Leuven, Belgium.,Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
| | - Tom Bourne
- Department of Development and Regeneration, KU Leuven, Belgium.,Queen Charlotte's and Chelsea Hospital, Imperial College, London, UK.,Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
| | - Giovanni Scambia
- Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli, IRCCS, Dipartimento Scienze della Salute della Donna, del Bambino e di Sanità Pubblica, Roma, Italia.,Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore,Istituto di Clinica Ostetrica e Ginecologica, Roma, Italy
| | - Lil Valentin
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Skåne University Hospital, Malmö, Sweden.,Department of Clinical Sciences Malmö, Lund University, Lund, Sweden
| | - Antonia Carla Testa
- Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli, IRCCS, Dipartimento Scienze della Salute della Donna, del Bambino e di Sanità Pubblica, Roma, Italia.,Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Skåne University Hospital, Malmö, Sweden
| |
Collapse
|
26
|
Qian L, Du Q, Jiang M, Yuan F, Chen H, Feng W. Comparison of the Diagnostic Performances of Ultrasound-Based Models for Predicting Malignancy in Patients With Adnexal Masses. Front Oncol 2021; 11:673722. [PMID: 34141619 PMCID: PMC8204044 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2021.673722] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/28/2021] [Accepted: 05/07/2021] [Indexed: 11/29/2022] Open
Abstract
Aim This study aimed to compare different ultrasound-based International Ovarian Tumor Analysis (IOTA) prediction models, namely, the Simple Rules (SRs) the Assessment of Different NEoplasias in the adneXa (ADNEX) models, and the Risk of Malignancy Index (RMI), for the pre-operative diagnosis of adnexal mass. Methods This single-centre diagnostic accuracy study involved 486 patients. All ultrasound examinations were analyzed and the prediction models were applied. Pathology was the clinical reference standard. The diagnostic performances of prediction models were measured by evaluating receiver-operating characteristic curves, sensitivities, specificities, positive and negative predictive values, positive and negative likelihood ratios, and diagnostic odds ratios. Results To discriminate benign and malignant tumors, areas under the ROC curves (AUCs) for ADNEX models were 0.94 (95% CI: 0.92–0.96) with CA125 and 0.94 (95% CI: 0.91–0.96) without CA125, which were significantly higher than the AUCs for RMI I-III: 0.87 (95% CI: 0.83–0.90), 0.83 (95% CI: 0.80–0.86), and 0.82 (95% CI: 0.78–0.86), (all P < 0.0001). At a cut-off of 10%, the ADNEX model with CA125 had the highest sensitivity (0.93; 95% CI: 0.87–0.97) compared with the other models. The SRs model achieved a sensitivity of 0.93 (95% CI: 0.86–0.97) and a specificity of 0.86 (95% CI: 0.82–0.89) when inconclusive diagnoses (11.7%) were classified as malignant. Conclusion ADNEX and SRs models were excellent at characterising adnexal masses which were superior to the RMI in Chinese patients.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Le Qian
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China
| | - Qinwen Du
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China
| | - Meijiao Jiang
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China
| | - Fei Yuan
- Department of Pathology, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China
| | - Hui Chen
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China
| | - Weiwei Feng
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China
| |
Collapse
|
27
|
Moro F, Castellano LM, Franchi D, Epstein E, Fischerova D, Froyman W, Timmerman D, Zannoni GF, Scambia G, Valentin L, Testa AC, Mascilini F. Imaging in gynecological disease (22): clinical and ultrasound characteristics of ovarian embryonal carcinomas, non-gestational choriocarcinomas and malignant mixed germ cell tumors. ULTRASOUND IN OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY : THE OFFICIAL JOURNAL OF THE INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY OF ULTRASOUND IN OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY 2021; 57:987-994. [PMID: 33142349 DOI: 10.1002/uog.23529] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/31/2020] [Revised: 10/08/2020] [Accepted: 10/21/2020] [Indexed: 06/11/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To describe the clinical and ultrasound characteristics of three types of rare malignant ovarian germ cell tumor: embryonal carcinoma, non-gestational choriocarcinoma and malignant mixed germ cell tumor. METHODS This was a retrospective multicenter study. From the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis (IOTA) database, we identified patients with a histological diagnosis of ovarian embryonal carcinoma, non-gestational choriocarcinoma or malignant mixed germ cell tumor, who had undergone preoperative ultrasound examination by an experienced ultrasound examiner between 2000 and 2020. Additional patients with the same histology were identified from the databases of the departments of gynecological oncology in the participating centers. All tumors were described using IOTA terminology. Three examiners reviewed all available ultrasound images and described them using pattern recognition. RESULTS One patient with embryonal carcinoma, five patients with non-gestational ovarian choriocarcinoma and seven patients with ovarian malignant mixed germ cell tumor (six primary tumors and one recurrence) were identified. Seven patients were included in the IOTA studies and six patients were examined outside of the IOTA studies. The median age at diagnosis was 26 (range, 14-77) years. Beta-human chorionic gonadotropin levels were highest in non-gestational choriocarcinomas and alpha-fetoprotein levels were highest in malignant mixed germ cell tumors. Most tumors were International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) Stage I (9/12 (75.0%)). All tumors were unilateral, and the median largest diameter was 129 (range, 38-216) mm. Of the tumors, 11/13 (84.6%) were solid and 2/13 (15.4%) were multilocular-solid; 9/13 (69.2%) manifested abundant vascularization on color Doppler examination. Using pattern recognition, the typical ultrasound appearance was a large solid tumor with inhomogeneous echogenicity of the solid tissue and often dispersed cysts which, in most cases, were small and irregular. Some tumors had smooth contours while others had irregular contours. CONCLUSIONS A unilateral, large solid tumor with inhomogeneous echogenicity of the solid tissue and with dispersed small cystic areas in a young woman should raise the suspicion of a rare malignant germ cell tumor. This suspicion can guide the clinician to test tumor markers specific for malignant germ cell tumors. © 2020 International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- F Moro
- Dipartimento Scienze della Salute della Donna, del Bambino e di Sanità Pubblica, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli, IRCCS, Rome, Italy
| | - L M Castellano
- Dipartimento Scienze della Salute della Donna, del Bambino e di Sanità Pubblica, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli, IRCCS, Rome, Italy
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy
| | - D Franchi
- Preventive Gynecology Unit, Division of Gynecology, European Institute of Oncology, IRCCS, Milan, Italy
| | - E Epstein
- Department of Clinical Science and Education, Karolinska Institutet and Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Sodersjukhuset, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - D Fischerova
- Gynecological Oncology Center, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic
| | - W Froyman
- Department of Development and Regeneration, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium; Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
| | - D Timmerman
- Department of Development and Regeneration, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium; Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
| | - G F Zannoni
- Dipartimento Scienze della Salute della Donna, del Bambino e di Sanità Pubblica, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli, IRCCS, Rome, Italy
- Dipartimento Scienze della Vita e Sanità Pubblica, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome, Italy
| | - G Scambia
- Dipartimento Scienze della Salute della Donna, del Bambino e di Sanità Pubblica, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli, IRCCS, Rome, Italy
- Dipartimento Scienze della Vita e Sanità Pubblica, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome, Italy
| | - L Valentin
- Skåne University Hospital Malmö, Malmö, Sweden
- Department of Clinical Sciences Malmö, Lund University, Malmö, Sweden
| | - A C Testa
- Dipartimento Scienze della Salute della Donna, del Bambino e di Sanità Pubblica, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli, IRCCS, Rome, Italy
- Dipartimento Scienze della Vita e Sanità Pubblica, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome, Italy
| | - F Mascilini
- Dipartimento Scienze della Salute della Donna, del Bambino e di Sanità Pubblica, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli, IRCCS, Rome, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
28
|
Cao L, Wei M, Liu Y, Fu J, Zhang H, Huang J, Pei X, Zhou J. Validation of American College of Radiology Ovarian-Adnexal Reporting and Data System Ultrasound (O-RADS US): Analysis on 1054 adnexal masses. Gynecol Oncol 2021; 162:107-112. [PMID: 33966893 DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2021.04.031] [Citation(s) in RCA: 44] [Impact Index Per Article: 14.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/19/2021] [Accepted: 04/24/2021] [Indexed: 12/12/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To assess the diagnostic performance and inter-observer agreement of the American College of Radiology (ACR) Ovarian-Adnexal Reporting and Data System Ultrasound (O-RADS US). METHODS From January 2016 to December 2018 a total of 1054 adnexal lesions in 1035 patients with pathologic results from two hospitals were retrospectively included. Each lesion was assigned to an O-RADS US category according to the criteria. Kappa (κ) statistics were applied to assess inter-observer agreement between a less experienced and an expert radiologist. RESULTS Of the 1054 adnexal lesions, 750 were benign and 304 were malignant. The malignancy rates of O-RADS 5, O-RADS 4, O-RADS 3, and O-RADS 2 lesions were 89.57%, 34.46%, 1.10%, and 0.45% respectively. Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.960 (95% CI, 0.947-0.971). The optimal cutoff value for predicting malignancy was >O-RADS 3 with a sensitivity and specificity of 98.7% (95% CI, 0.964-0.996) and 83.2% (95% CI, 0.802-0.858) respectively. When sub-classifying multilocular cysts and smooth solid lesions in O-RADS 4 lesions as O-RADS 4a lesions and the rest cystic lesions with solid components as O-RADS 4b lesions, the malignancy rate were 17.02% and 42.57% respectively, which showed better risk stratification (P < 0.001). The inter-observer agreement between a less-experienced and an expert radiologist of O-RADS categorization was good (κ = 0.714). CONCLUSIONS The ACR O-RADS US provides effective malignancy risk stratification for adnexal lesions with high reliability for radiologists with different experience. Sub-grouping of O-RADS 4 lesions into two groups facilitated better stratification of the intermediate risk.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Lan Cao
- Department of Ultrasound, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou, China
| | - Mingjie Wei
- Department of Ultrasound, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou, China
| | - Ying Liu
- Department of Ultrasound, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou, China
| | - Juan Fu
- Department of Ultrasound, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou, China
| | - Honghuan Zhang
- Department of Ultrasound, Jiangmen Central Hospital, Jiangmen, China
| | - Jing Huang
- Department of Ultrasound, Jiangmen Central Hospital, Jiangmen, China
| | - Xiaoqing Pei
- Department of Ultrasound, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou, China.
| | - Jianhua Zhou
- Department of Ultrasound, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou, China.
| |
Collapse
|
29
|
Altered Long Non-coding RNAs Expression and Cytotoxic and Anti-proliferative Activity of Dendrosomal Nano-curcumin in Ovarian Cancer Cells. INDIAN JOURNAL OF GYNECOLOGIC ONCOLOGY 2021. [DOI: 10.1007/s40944-021-00511-1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/11/2022]
|
30
|
Abstract
Importance Several predictive models and scoring systems have been developed to differentiate between benign and malignant ovarian masses, in order to guide effective management. These models use combinations of patient characteristics, ultrasound markers, and biochemical markers. Objective The aim of this study was to describe, compare, and prioritize, according to their strengths and qualities, all the adnexal prediction models. Evidence Acquisition This was a state-of-the-art review, synthesizing the findings of the current published literature on the available prediction models of adnexal masses. Results The existing models include subjective assessment by expert sonographers, the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis models (logistic regression models 1 and 2, Simple Rules, 3-step strategy, and ADNEX [Assessment of Different NEoplasias in the adneXa] model), the Risk of Malignancy Index, the Risk of Malignancy Ovarian Algorithm, the Gynecologic Imaging Reporting and Data System, and the Ovarian-Adnexal Reporting and Data System. Overall, subjective assessment appears to be superior to all prediction models. However, the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis models are probably the best available methods for nonexpert examiners. The Ovarian-Adnexal Reporting and Data System is an international approach that incorporates both the common European and North American approaches, but still needs to be validated. Conclusions Many prediction models exist for the assessment of adnexal masses. The adoption of a particular model is based on local guidelines, as well as sonographer's experience. The safety of expectant management of adnexal masses with benign ultrasound morphology is still under investigation.
Collapse
|
31
|
Sladkevicius P, Jokubkiene L, Timmerman D, Fischerova D, Van Holsbeke C, Franchi D, Savelli L, Epstein E, Fruscio R, Kaijser J, Czekierdowski A, Guerriero S, Pascual MA, Testa AC, Ameye L, Valentin L. Vessel morphology depicted by three-dimensional power Doppler ultrasound as second-stage test in adnexal tumors that are difficult to classify: prospective diagnostic accuracy study. ULTRASOUND IN OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY : THE OFFICIAL JOURNAL OF THE INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY OF ULTRASOUND IN OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY 2021; 57:324-334. [PMID: 32853459 PMCID: PMC7898332 DOI: 10.1002/uog.22191] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/11/2020] [Revised: 07/20/2020] [Accepted: 08/16/2020] [Indexed: 05/11/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES To assess whether vessel morphology depicted by three-dimensional (3D) power Doppler ultrasound improves discrimination between benignity and malignancy if used as a second-stage test in adnexal masses that are difficult to classify. METHODS This was a prospective observational international multicenter diagnostic accuracy study. Consecutive patients with an adnexal mass underwent standardized transvaginal two-dimensional (2D) grayscale and color or power Doppler and 3D power Doppler ultrasound examination by an experienced examiner, and those with a 'difficult' tumor were included in the current analysis. A difficult tumor was defined as one in which the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis (IOTA) logistic regression model-1 (LR-1) yielded an ambiguous result (risk of malignancy, 8.3% to 25.5%), or as one in which the ultrasound examiner was uncertain regarding classification as benign or malignant when using subjective assessment. Even when the ultrasound examiner was uncertain, he/she was obliged to classify the tumor as most probably benign or most probably malignant. For each difficult tumor, one researcher created a 360° rotating 3D power Doppler image of the vessel tree in the whole tumor and another of the vessel tree in a 5-cm3 spherical volume selected from the most vascularized part of the tumor. Two other researchers, blinded to the patient's history, 2D ultrasound findings and histological diagnosis, independently described the vessel tree using predetermined vessel features. Their agreed classification was used. The reference standard was the histological diagnosis of the mass. The sensitivity of each test for discriminating between benign and malignant difficult tumors was plotted against 1 - specificity on a receiver-operating-characteristics diagram, and the test with the point furthest from the reference line was considered to have the best diagnostic ability. RESULTS Of 2403 women with an adnexal mass, 376 (16%) had a difficult mass. Ultrasound volumes were available for 138 of these cases. In 79/138 masses, the ultrasound examiner was uncertain about the diagnosis based on subjective assessment, in 87/138, IOTA LR-1 yielded an ambiguous result and, in 28/138, both methods gave an uncertain result. Of the masses, 38/138 (28%) were malignant. Among tumors that were difficult to classify as benign or malignant by subjective assessment, the vessel feature 'densely packed vessels' had the best discriminative ability (sensitivity 67% (18/27), specificity 83% (43/52)) and was slightly superior to subjective assessment (sensitivity 74% (20/27), specificity 60% (31/52)). In tumors in which IOTA LR-1 yielded an ambiguous result, subjective assessment (sensitivity 82% (14/17), specificity 79% (55/70)) was superior to the best vascular feature, i.e. changes in the diameter of vessels in the whole tumor volume (sensitivity 71% (12/17), specificity 69% (48/70)). CONCLUSION Vessel morphology depicted by 3D power Doppler ultrasound may slightly improve discrimination between benign and malignant adnexal tumors that are difficult to classify by subjective ultrasound assessment. For tumors in which the IOTA LR-1 model yields an ambiguous result, subjective assessment is superior to vessel morphology as a second-stage test. © 2020 The Authors. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- P. Sladkevicius
- Department of Obstetrics and GynecologySkåne University HospitalMalmöSweden
- Department of Clinical Sciences MalmöLund UniversityMalmöSweden
| | - L. Jokubkiene
- Department of Obstetrics and GynecologySkåne University HospitalMalmöSweden
- Department of Clinical Sciences MalmöLund UniversityMalmöSweden
| | - D. Timmerman
- Department of Development and Regeneration, KU LeuvenLeuvenBelgium
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Leuven Cancer InstituteUniversity Hospitals LeuvenLeuvenBelgium
| | - D. Fischerova
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, First Faculty of MedicineCharles University and First Faculty of MedicinePragueCzech Republic
| | - C. Van Holsbeke
- Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyZiekenhuis Oost LimburgGenkBelgium
| | - D. Franchi
- Preventive Gynecology Unit, Division of GynecologyEuropean Institute of OncologyMilanItaly
| | - L. Savelli
- Gynecology and Reproductive Medicine Unit, S. Orsola‐Malpighi HospitalUniversity of BolognaBolognaItaly
| | - E. Epstein
- Department of Clinical Science and EducationKarolinska Institute, SödersjukhusetStockholmSweden
| | - R. Fruscio
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, San Gerardo HospitalUniversity of Milan‐BicoccaMonzaItaly
| | - J. Kaijser
- Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyIkazia Hospital RotterdamRotterdamThe Netherlands
| | - A. Czekierdowski
- 1st Department of Gynecological Oncology and GynecologyMedical University of LublinLublinPoland
| | - S. Guerriero
- Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyUniversity of Cagliari, Policlinico Universitario Duilio Casula, MonserratoCagliariItaly
| | - M. A. Pascual
- Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and ReproductionHospital Universitari DexeusBarcelonaSpain
| | - A. C. Testa
- Department of Gynecological OncologyCatholic University of the Sacred HeartRomeItaly
| | - L. Ameye
- Department of Development and Regeneration, KU LeuvenLeuvenBelgium
- Jules Bordet InstituteUniversité Libre de BruxellesBrusselsBelgium
| | - L. Valentin
- Department of Obstetrics and GynecologySkåne University HospitalMalmöSweden
- Department of Clinical Sciences MalmöLund UniversityMalmöSweden
| |
Collapse
|
32
|
Early-Stage Ovarian Malignancy Score versus Risk of Malignancy Indices: Accuracy and Clinical Utility for Preoperative Diagnosis of Women with Adnexal Masses. ACTA ACUST UNITED AC 2020; 56:medicina56120702. [PMID: 33339091 PMCID: PMC7765501 DOI: 10.3390/medicina56120702] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/10/2020] [Revised: 12/11/2020] [Accepted: 12/14/2020] [Indexed: 01/09/2023]
Abstract
Background and objectives: To compare the diagnostic accuracy and clinical utility of the Early-stage Ovarian Malignancy (EOM) score with the Risk of Malignancy Index (RMI) in the presurgical assessment of women presenting with adnexal masses. Materials and Methods: A secondary analysis was carried out in a retrospective cohort of women who presented with an adnexal mass and were scheduled for surgery at Phrapokklao Hospital between September 2013 and December 2017. The clinical characteristics, ultrasonographic features of the masses, and preoperative CA-125 levels were recorded. The EOM and the RMI score were calculated and compared in terms of accuracy and clinical utility. Decision curve analysis (DCA), which examined the net benefit (NB) of applying the EOM and the RMI in practice at a range of threshold probabilities, was presented. Results: In this study, data from 270 patients were analyzed. Fifty-four (20.0%) women in the sample had early-stage ovarian cancer. All four RMI versions demonstrated a lower sensitivity for the detection of patients with early-stage ovarian cancer compared to an EOM score ≥ 15. An EOM ≥ 15 resulted in a higher proportion of net true positive or NB than all versions of the RMIs from a threshold probability of 5% to 30%. Conclusions: It also showed a higher capability to reduce the number of inappropriate referrals than the RMIs at a threshold probability between 5% and 30%. The EOM score showed higher diagnostic sensitivity and has the potential to be clinically more useful than the RMIs to triage women who present with adnexal masses for referral to oncologic gynecologists. Further external validation is required to support our findings.
Collapse
|
33
|
Boisselier A, Jalaguier-Coudray A, Mahjoub-Villard R, Thomassin-Naggara I. Classification O-RADS US et IRM. IMAGERIE DE LA FEMME 2020. [DOI: 10.1016/j.femme.2020.07.004] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/22/2022]
|
34
|
Zhang X, Meng X, Dou T, Sun H. Diagnostic accuracy of transvaginal ultrasound examination for assigning a specific diagnosis to adnexal masses: A meta-analysis. Exp Ther Med 2020; 20:265. [PMID: 33199990 PMCID: PMC7664593 DOI: 10.3892/etm.2020.9395] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/24/2020] [Accepted: 09/18/2020] [Indexed: 01/01/2023] Open
Abstract
Transvaginal ultrasound (TVUS) is a standard imaging modality for differentiating patients with benign or malignant suspected adnexal mass. To date, numerous studies have assessed the diagnostic accuracy of TVUS in various settings but with variable results. Therefore, the purpose of the present study was to perform a meta-analysis to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of TVUS for the differentiation of adnexal masses. An electronic search in the Medline, Scopus, Cochrane and Embase databases from inception till November 2019 was carried out. Meta-analysis was performed to obtain pooled sensitivity and specificity of TVUS to distinguish malignant from benign adnexal masses. The quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies-2 tool was used to assess the quality of trials. A total of 41 studies with 18,391 patients were included. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of TVUS was 92% (95% CI: 90-94%) and 89% (95% CI: 85-92%), respectively. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.96 (95% CI: 0.84-1.00). There was considerable heterogeneity with a statistically significant chi-square test (P<0.001) and I2 of 99%. Meta-regression results indicated that index test standards, patient selection bias and study design were potential sources of heterogeneity (P<0.05). The funnel plot was symmetrical and low publication bias was confirmed by an insignificant Deek's test (P=0.90). The present systematic review and meta-analysis indicated that TVUS is useful in differentiating between benign and malignant tumours among patients with suspected adnexal mass with high sensitivity and specificity.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Xiya Zhang
- Department of Special Inspection, Shandong Qingdao Hospital of Integrated Traditional and Western Medicine, Qingdao, Shandong 266002, P.R. China
| | - Xuan Meng
- Department of Ultrasound, Qingdao Fuwai Cardiovascular Hospital, Qingdao, Shandong 266021, P.R. China
| | - Ting Dou
- Department of Ultrasound Medicine, The Third People's Hospital of Qingdao, Qingdao, Shandong 266041, P.R. China
| | - Hui Sun
- Department of Special Inspection, Qingdao Women and Children's Hospital, Qingdao, Shandong 266000, P.R. China
| |
Collapse
|
35
|
Grover SB, Patra S, Grover H, Mittal P, Khanna G. 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. Indian J Radiol Imaging 2020; 30:304-318. [PMID: 33273764 PMCID: PMC7694716 DOI: 10.4103/ijri.ijri_279_20] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/20/2020] [Revised: 07/14/2020] [Accepted: 08/17/2020] [Indexed: 02/05/2023] Open
Abstract
Objectives: The purpose of this study was to revalidate the diagnostic performance of IOTA “two step” (Simple Descriptors and Simple Rules), “ alternative two step” (Simple Rules Risk Calculation tool / SRrisk score), and three step (two step with subjective assessment) strategies, for characterization of adnexal masses as benign or malignant, using histopathology as gold standard. Materials and Methods: This prospective, study comprised of 100 patients with newly diagnosed adnexal masses, who underwent ultrasound evaluation first by a level I and then by a level III investigator (EFSUMB criteria). Initially, the level I investigator evaluated each adnexal mass, applying IOTA “two-step” strategy and simultaneously assigned a risk category, by applying the simple rules risk score (SRrisk score) or performing the “alternative two step” strategy. Subsequently the inconclusive masses were evaluated by the level III investigator using “real time subjective assessment”, thereby performing the third step. Following histopathology diagnosis, the performance of each strategy was evaluated using diagnostic tests. Results: The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and diagnostic accuracy of “two-step” strategy were 87.5%, 79.2%, 89.4%, 76%, and 84.7%, respectively; those of “alternative two-step” strategy were 91.5%, 75.6%, 84.4%, 86.1% and 88%; and those of “three-step” strategy were 98.2%, 93.3%, 94.7%, 97.7% and 96%, respectively. Conclusion: All IOTA strategies showed good diagnostic performance for characterization of adnexal masses and the “three-step” strategy performed best. We believe this is the first ever prospective re-validation and comparative evaluation of all three IOTA strategies by Indian Radiologists. Since ultrasound is the primary modality for evaluation of adnexal masses, based on the good results of our study, a recommendation for henceforth standard application, of the three-step IOTA strategy in routine Radiology practice appears justified. Although, IOTA strategies been proposed and validated mainly by Gynaecologists and Oncology surgeons, based on the results of our study, this paradigm can now be made to shift back to the arena of Radiology and Radiologists, the imaging experts.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Shabnam Bhandari Grover
- Department of Radiology and Imaging, Vardhman Mahavir Medical College and Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi, India
| | - Sayantan Patra
- Department of Radiology and Imaging, Vardhman Mahavir Medical College and Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi, India
| | - Hemal Grover
- Department of Radiology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai West, New York, USA
| | - Pratima Mittal
- Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Vardhman Mahavir Medical College and Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi, India
| | - Geetika Khanna
- Department of Pathology, Vardhman Mahavir Medical College and Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi, India
| |
Collapse
|
36
|
Van Calster B, Valentin L, Froyman W, Landolfo C, Ceusters J, Testa AC, Wynants L, Sladkevicius P, Van Holsbeke C, Domali E, Fruscio R, Epstein E, Franchi D, Kudla MJ, Chiappa V, Alcazar JL, Leone FPG, Buonomo F, Coccia ME, Guerriero S, Deo N, Jokubkiene L, Savelli L, Fischerová D, Czekierdowski A, Kaijser J, Coosemans A, Scambia G, Vergote I, Bourne T, Timmerman D. Validation of models to diagnose ovarian cancer in patients managed surgically or conservatively: multicentre cohort study. BMJ 2020; 370:m2614. [PMID: 32732303 PMCID: PMC7391073 DOI: 10.1136/bmj.m2614] [Citation(s) in RCA: 37] [Impact Index Per Article: 9.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/22/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To evaluate the performance of diagnostic prediction models for ovarian malignancy in all patients with an ovarian mass managed surgically or conservatively. DESIGN Multicentre cohort study. SETTING 36 oncology referral centres (tertiary centres with a specific gynaecological oncology unit) or other types of centre. PARTICIPANTS Consecutive adult patients presenting with an adnexal mass between January 2012 and March 2015 and managed by surgery or follow-up. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Overall and centre specific discrimination, calibration, and clinical utility of six prediction models for ovarian malignancy (risk of malignancy index (RMI), logistic regression model 2 (LR2), simple rules, simple rules risk model (SRRisk), assessment of different neoplasias in the adnexa (ADNEX) with or without CA125). ADNEX allows the risk of malignancy to be subdivided into risks of a borderline, stage I primary, stage II-IV primary, or secondary metastatic malignancy. The outcome was based on histology if patients underwent surgery, or on results of clinical and ultrasound follow-up at 12 (±2) months. Multiple imputation was used when outcome based on follow-up was uncertain. RESULTS The primary analysis included 17 centres that met strict quality criteria for surgical and follow-up data (5717 of all 8519 patients). 812 patients (14%) had a mass that was already in follow-up at study recruitment, therefore 4905 patients were included in the statistical analysis. The outcome was benign in 3441 (70%) patients and malignant in 978 (20%). Uncertain outcomes (486, 10%) were most often explained by limited follow-up information. The overall area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was highest for ADNEX with CA125 (0.94, 95% confidence interval 0.92 to 0.96), ADNEX without CA125 (0.94, 0.91 to 0.95) and SRRisk (0.94, 0.91 to 0.95), and lowest for RMI (0.89, 0.85 to 0.92). Calibration varied among centres for all models, however the ADNEX models and SRRisk were the best calibrated. Calibration of the estimated risks for the tumour subtypes was good for ADNEX irrespective of whether or not CA125 was included as a predictor. Overall clinical utility (net benefit) was highest for the ADNEX models and SRRisk, and lowest for RMI. For patients who received at least one follow-up scan (n=1958), overall area under the receiver operating characteristic curve ranged from 0.76 (95% confidence interval 0.66 to 0.84) for RMI to 0.89 (0.81 to 0.94) for ADNEX with CA125. CONCLUSIONS Our study found the ADNEX models and SRRisk are the best models to distinguish between benign and malignant masses in all patients presenting with an adnexal mass, including those managed conservatively. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01698632.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ben Van Calster
- Department of Development and Regeneration, KU Leuven, Herestraat 49 Box 805, 3000 Leuven, Belgium
- Department of Biomedical Data Sciences, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, Netherlands
- EPI-Centre, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
| | - Lil Valentin
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Skåne University Hospital, Malmö, Sweden
- Department of Clinical Sciences Malmö, Lund University, Lund, Sweden
| | - Wouter Froyman
- Department of Development and Regeneration, KU Leuven, Herestraat 49 Box 805, 3000 Leuven, Belgium
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
| | - Chiara Landolfo
- Department of Development and Regeneration, KU Leuven, Herestraat 49 Box 805, 3000 Leuven, Belgium
- Queen Charlotte's and Chelsea Hospital, Imperial College, London, UK
| | - Jolien Ceusters
- Laboratory of Tumour Immunology and Immunotherapy, Department of Oncology, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
| | - Antonia C Testa
- Department of Woman, Child and Public Health, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli, Istituto di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico, Rome, Italy
- Department of Life Science and Public Health, Universita' Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome, Italy
| | - Laure Wynants
- Department of Development and Regeneration, KU Leuven, Herestraat 49 Box 805, 3000 Leuven, Belgium
- Department of Epidemiology, CAPHRI Care and Public Health Research Institute, Maastricht University, Maastricht, Netherlands
| | - Povilas Sladkevicius
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Skåne University Hospital, Malmö, Sweden
- Department of Clinical Sciences Malmö, Lund University, Lund, Sweden
| | | | - Ekaterini Domali
- First Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Alexandra Hospital, Medical School, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece
| | - Robert Fruscio
- Clinic of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Milan-Bicocca, San Gerardo Hospital, Monza, Italy
| | - Elisabeth Epstein
- Department of Clinical Science and Education, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Södersjukhuset, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - Dorella Franchi
- Preventive Gynaecology Unit, Division of Gynaecology, European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy
| | - Marek J Kudla
- Department of Perinatology and Oncological Gynaecology, School of Health Sciences in Katowice, Medical University of Silesia, Katowice, Poland
| | - Valentina Chiappa
- Department of Gynaecologic Oncology, National Cancer Institute of Milan, Milan, Italy
| | - Juan L Alcazar
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Clinica Universidad de Navarra, School of Medicine, Pamplona, Spain
| | - Francesco P G Leone
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Biomedical and Clinical Sciences Institute L. Sacco, University of Milan, Milan, Italy
| | - Francesca Buonomo
- Institute for Maternal and Child Health, IRCCS Burlo Garofolo, Trieste, Italy
| | - Maria Elisabetta Coccia
- Department of Experimental and Clinical Biomedical Sciences, University of Florence, Florence, Italy
| | - Stefano Guerriero
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Cagliari, Policlinico Universitario Duilio Casula, Monserrato, Cagliari, Italy
| | - Nandita Deo
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Whipps Cross Hospital, London, UK
| | - Ligita Jokubkiene
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Skåne University Hospital, Malmö, Sweden
- Department of Clinical Sciences Malmö, Lund University, Lund, Sweden
| | - Luca Savelli
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy
| | - Daniela Fischerová
- Gynaecological Oncology Centre, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General University Hospital, Prague, Czech Republic
| | - Artur Czekierdowski
- First Department of Gynaecological Oncology and Gynaecology, Medical University of Lublin, Lublin, Poland
| | - Jeroen Kaijser
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Ikazia Hospital, Rotterdam, Netherlands
| | - An Coosemans
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
- Laboratory of Tumour Immunology and Immunotherapy, Department of Oncology, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
- Leuven Cancer Institute, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
| | - Giovanni Scambia
- Department of Woman, Child and Public Health, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli, Istituto di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico, Rome, Italy
- Department of Life Science and Public Health, Universita' Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome, Italy
| | - Ignace Vergote
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
- Laboratory of Tumour Immunology and Immunotherapy, Department of Oncology, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
- Leuven Cancer Institute, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
| | - Tom Bourne
- Department of Development and Regeneration, KU Leuven, Herestraat 49 Box 805, 3000 Leuven, Belgium
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
- Queen Charlotte's and Chelsea Hospital, Imperial College, London, UK
| | - Dirk Timmerman
- Department of Development and Regeneration, KU Leuven, Herestraat 49 Box 805, 3000 Leuven, Belgium dirk.timmerman@uzleuven
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
| |
Collapse
|
37
|
Szubert S, Szpurek D, Wójtowicz A, Żywica P, Stukan M, Sajdak S, Jabłonski S, Wicherek Ł, Moszyński R. Performance of Selected Models for Predicting Malignancy in Ovarian Tumors in Relation to the Degree of Diagnostic Uncertainty by Subjective Assessment With Ultrasound. JOURNAL OF ULTRASOUND IN MEDICINE : OFFICIAL JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ULTRASOUND IN MEDICINE 2020; 39:939-947. [PMID: 31782548 DOI: 10.1002/jum.15178] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/13/2019] [Revised: 10/26/2019] [Accepted: 11/06/2019] [Indexed: 06/10/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES The study's main aim was to evaluate the relationship between the performance of predictive models for differential diagnoses of ovarian tumors and levels of diagnostic confidence in subjective assessment (SA) with ultrasound. The second aim was to identify the parameters that differentiate between malignant and benign tumors among tumors initially diagnosed as uncertain by SA. METHODS The study included 250 (55%) benign ovarian masses and 201 (45%) malignant tumors. According to ultrasound findings, the tumors were divided into 6 groups: certainly benign, probably benign, uncertain but benign, uncertain but malignant, probably malignant, and certainly malignant. The performance of the risk of malignancy index, International Ovarian Tumor Analysis assessment of different neoplasias in the adnexa model, and International Ovarian Tumor Analysis logistic regression model 2 was analyzed in subgroups as follows: SA-certain tumors (including certainly benign and certainly malignant) versus SA-probable tumors (probably benign and probably malignant) versus SA-uncertain tumors (uncertain but benign and uncertain but malignant). RESULTS We found a progressive decrease in the performance of all models in association with the increased uncertainty in SA. The areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve for the risk of malignancy index, logistic regression model 2, and assessment of different neoplasias in the adnexa model decreased between the SA-certain and SA-uncertain groups by 20%, 28%, and 20%, respectively. The presence of solid parts and a high color score were the discriminatory features between uncertain but benign and uncertain but malignant tumors. CONCLUSIONS Studies are needed that focus on the subgroup of ovarian tumors that are difficult to classify by SA. In cases of uncertain tumors by SA, the presence of solid components or a high color score should prompt a gynecologic oncology clinic referral.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sebastian Szubert
- Clinical Department of Gynecological Oncology, Franciszek Lukaszczyk Oncological Center, Bydgoszcz, Poland
- Second Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Medical Center of Postgraduate Education, Warsaw, Poland
| | - Dariusz Szpurek
- Private Medical Practice Dariusz Szpurek, 32/4 Chwiałkowskiego St., 61-553, Poznań
| | - Andrzej Wójtowicz
- Faculty of Mathematics and Computer Science, Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznan, Poland
| | - Patryk Żywica
- Faculty of Mathematics and Computer Science, Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznan, Poland
| | - Maciej Stukan
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology, Gdynia Oncology Center, Pomeranian Hospitals, Gdynia, Poland
| | - Stefan Sajdak
- Division of Gynecologic Surgery, Poznan University of Medical Sciences, Poznan, Poland
| | - Sławomir Jabłonski
- Clinical Department of Gynecological Oncology, Franciszek Lukaszczyk Oncological Center, Bydgoszcz, Poland
| | - Łukasz Wicherek
- Second Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Medical Center of Postgraduate Education, Warsaw, Poland
| | - Rafał Moszyński
- Division of Gynecologic Surgery, Poznan University of Medical Sciences, Poznan, Poland
| |
Collapse
|
38
|
Li X, Zhao L, Meng T. Upregulated CXCL14 is associated with poor survival outcomes and promotes ovarian cancer cells proliferation. Cell Biochem Funct 2020; 38:613-620. [PMID: 32077118 DOI: 10.1002/cbf.3516] [Citation(s) in RCA: 15] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/05/2019] [Revised: 01/24/2020] [Accepted: 02/05/2020] [Indexed: 12/12/2022]
Abstract
Ovarian cancer is one of the common malignant tumours of female reproductive organs. Due to early diagnosis difficulties and lack of effective treatment in the late stage, ovarian cancer has the highest mortality rate in female reproductive system malignancies. Therefore, finding reliable early diagnosis indicators and new therapeutic targets for ovarian cancer is an urgent problem to be solved. Chemokine (C-X-C motif) ligand 14 (CXCL14) is a small cytokine belonging to the CXC chemokine family, which has been found to possess multi-effects in tumourigenesis and development. Here, we reported that CXCL14 was preferentially expressed in ovarian cancer. By analysing the TCGA database, we found that CXCL14 was highly expressed in advanced ovarian cancer patients and correlated with poor prognosis. In addition, the abnormal high CXCL14 levels were observed in serum and ovarian tissue of ovarian cancer patients by qRT-PCR and ELISA. In vitro and in vivo experiments both confirmed that overexpression of CXCL14 promoted the ovarian cancer cell proliferation. Moreover, transfection of CXCL14 increased the phosphorylation level of signal transducer and activator of transcription 3 (STAT3), and administration of STAT3 inhibitor III inhibited the tumour-promoting effects of CXCL14. Therefore, our study suggests that CXCL14 could be utilised as a novel adjunct biomarker for early diagnosis of ovarian cancer and provides new targets and ideas for the treatment of advanced ovarian cancer. SIGNIFICANCE PARAGRAPH: CXCL14 could be utilised as a novel adjunct biomarker for early diagnosis of ovarian cancer and provides new targets and ideas for the treatment of advanced ovarian cancer.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Xue Li
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Liaocheng People's Hospital, Liaocheng, China
| | - Longjun Zhao
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Liaocheng People's Hospital, Liaocheng, China
| | - Tengteng Meng
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Liaocheng People's Hospital, Liaocheng, China
| |
Collapse
|
39
|
Evaluation of adnexal tumours in the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis system in reference to histopathological results. MENOPAUSE REVIEW 2020; 18:141-145. [PMID: 31975980 PMCID: PMC6970421 DOI: 10.5114/pm.2019.90812] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/11/2019] [Accepted: 11/07/2019] [Indexed: 11/21/2022]
Abstract
Aim of the study To retrospectively evaluate how the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis (IOTA) simple rules used in ultrasound examinations estimate the probability of malignant and benign tumour occurrence in the studied population. Material and methods The study was performed on a group of 425 patients with ovarian tumours operated in the Clinic of Surgical and Oncological Gynecology at the Medical University of Lodz in the years 2014-2015. Adnexal tumours were rated according to IOTA simple rules, classifying them as probably malignant, probably benign, or unclassified. The results of the study were compared with final histopathological results. The statistical analysis was performed using STATISTICA 13 PL with Medical Pack. Results We analysed data on n = 43 (11%) patients with malignant, n = 346 (86%) patients with benign, and n = 12 (3%) patients with borderline tumours, respectively. Malignant tumour patients were significantly older (mean age 61.0 ±11.6 vs. 43.6 ±16.2 years, p< 0.001), had higher BMI (mean 27.3 ±7.0 vs. 25.2 ±5.2, p< 0.05), more pregnancies (median 2 vs. 1, p = 0.001), and higher cancer antigen 125 (CA 125) concentrations (median 251.5 vs. 18.5, p< 0.001) than patients with a benign tumour. Also, they more often suffered from diabetes mellitus (19% vs. 8%, p = 0.02) and arterial hypertension (60% vs. 42%, p< 0.01) than benign tumour patients. Conclusions In our study, IOTA performance in predicting or ruling out a malignant tumour was highly satisfactory and similar to that of CA 125. Both the methods may be complementary and used to assess the risk of malignant vs. benign ovarian neoplasm, although the context of other clinical variables may also be important.
Collapse
|
40
|
Falconieri N, Van Calster B, Timmerman D, Wynants L. Developing risk models for multicenter data using standard logistic regression produced suboptimal predictions: A simulation study. Biom J 2020; 62:932-944. [PMID: 31957077 PMCID: PMC7383814 DOI: 10.1002/bimj.201900075] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/04/2019] [Revised: 09/16/2019] [Accepted: 10/15/2019] [Indexed: 11/17/2022]
Abstract
Although multicenter data are common, many prediction model studies ignore this during model development. The objective of this study is to evaluate the predictive performance of regression methods for developing clinical risk prediction models using multicenter data, and provide guidelines for practice. We compared the predictive performance of standard logistic regression, generalized estimating equations, random intercept logistic regression, and fixed effects logistic regression. First, we presented a case study on the diagnosis of ovarian cancer. Subsequently, a simulation study investigated the performance of the different models as a function of the amount of clustering, development sample size, distribution of center‐specific intercepts, the presence of a center‐predictor interaction, and the presence of a dependency between center effects and predictors. The results showed that when sample sizes were sufficiently large, conditional models yielded calibrated predictions, whereas marginal models yielded miscalibrated predictions. Small sample sizes led to overfitting and unreliable predictions. This miscalibration was worse with more heavily clustered data. Calibration of random intercept logistic regression was better than that of standard logistic regression even when center‐specific intercepts were not normally distributed, a center‐predictor interaction was present, center effects and predictors were dependent, or when the model was applied in a new center. Therefore, to make reliable predictions in a specific center, we recommend random intercept logistic regression.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Nora Falconieri
- Department of Development and Regeneration, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
| | - Ben Van Calster
- Department of Development and Regeneration, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.,Department of Biomedical Data Sciences, Leiden University Medical Center (LUMC), Leiden, The Netherlands
| | - Dirk Timmerman
- Department of Development and Regeneration, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.,Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
| | - Laure Wynants
- Department of Development and Regeneration, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.,Department of Epidemiology, CAPHRI Care and Public Health Research Institute, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
41
|
Gentry-Maharaj A, Burnell M, Dilley J, Ryan A, Karpinskyj C, Gunu R, Mallett S, Deeks J, Campbell S, Jacobs I, Sundar S, Menon U. Serum HE4 and diagnosis of ovarian cancer in postmenopausal women with adnexal masses. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2020; 222:56.e1-56.e17. [PMID: 31351062 PMCID: PMC7471839 DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2019.07.031] [Citation(s) in RCA: 23] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/07/2019] [Revised: 07/15/2019] [Accepted: 07/18/2019] [Indexed: 12/29/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Transvaginal ultrasound and serum CA125 are routinely used for differential diagnosis of pelvic adnexal mass. Use of human epididymis 4 was approved in the United States in 2011. However, there is scarcity of studies evaluating the additional value of human epididymis 4. OBJECTIVE The objective of the study was to evaluate the performance characteristics of transvaginal ultrasound, CA125, and human epididymis 4 for differential diagnosis of ovarian cancer in postmenopausal women with adnexal masses. STUDY DESIGN This was a cohort study nested within the screen arms of the multicenter randomized controlled trial, United Kingdom Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening, based in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland. In United Kingdom Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening, 48,230 women randomized to transvaginal ultrasound screening and 50,078 to multimodal screening (serum CA125 interpreted by Risk of Ovarian Cancer Algorithm with second line transvaginal ultrasound) underwent the first (prevalence) screen. Women with adnexal lesions and/or persistently elevated risk were clinically assessed and underwent surgery or follow-up for a median of 10.9 years. Banked samples taken within 6 months of transvaginal ultrasound from all clinically assessed women were assayed for human epididymis 4 and CA125. Area under the curve and sensitivity for diagnosing ovarian cancer of multiple penalized logistic regression models incorporating logCA125, log human epididymis 4, age, and simple ultrasound features of the adnexal mass were compared. RESULTS Of 1590 (158 multimodal, 1432 ultrasound) women with adnexal masses, 78 were diagnosed with ovarian cancer (48 invasive epithelial ovarian, 14 type I, 34 type II; 24 borderline epithelial; 6 nonepithelial) within 1 year of scan. The area under the curve (0.893 vs 0.896; P = .453) and sensitivity (74.4% vs 75.6% ;P = .564) at fixed specificity of 90% of the model incorporating age, ultrasound, and CA125 were similar to that also including human epididymis 4. Both models had high sensitivity for invasive epithelial ovarian (89.6%) and type II (>91%) cancers. CONCLUSION Our population cohort study suggests that human epididymis 4 adds little value to concurrent use of CA125 and transvaginal ultrasound in the differential diagnosis of adnexal masses in postmenopausal women.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Aleksandra Gentry-Maharaj
- Medical Research Council Clinical Trials Unit at University College London, Institute of Clinical Trials and Methodology, University College London, London
| | - Matthew Burnell
- Medical Research Council Clinical Trials Unit at University College London, Institute of Clinical Trials and Methodology, University College London, London
| | - James Dilley
- Medical Research Council Clinical Trials Unit at University College London, Institute of Clinical Trials and Methodology, University College London, London
| | - Andy Ryan
- Medical Research Council Clinical Trials Unit at University College London, Institute of Clinical Trials and Methodology, University College London, London; Department of Women's Cancer, Institute for Women's Health, University College London, London
| | - Chloe Karpinskyj
- Medical Research Council Clinical Trials Unit at University College London, Institute of Clinical Trials and Methodology, University College London, London
| | - Richard Gunu
- Department of Women's Cancer, Institute for Women's Health, University College London, London
| | - Susan Mallett
- Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, London
| | - Jon Deeks
- Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, London
| | | | - Ian Jacobs
- Department of Women's Cancer, Institute for Women's Health, University College London, London; University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Sudha Sundar
- Pan Birmingham Gynaecological Cancer Centre, School of Cancer Sciences, City Hospital, Birmingham, United Kingdom
| | - Usha Menon
- Medical Research Council Clinical Trials Unit at University College London, Institute of Clinical Trials and Methodology, University College London, London.
| |
Collapse
|
42
|
Van Calster B, McLernon DJ, van Smeden M, Wynants L, Steyerberg EW. Calibration: the Achilles heel of predictive analytics. BMC Med 2019; 17:230. [PMID: 31842878 PMCID: PMC6912996 DOI: 10.1186/s12916-019-1466-7] [Citation(s) in RCA: 676] [Impact Index Per Article: 135.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/24/2019] [Accepted: 11/10/2019] [Indexed: 12/24/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND The assessment of calibration performance of risk prediction models based on regression or more flexible machine learning algorithms receives little attention. MAIN TEXT Herein, we argue that this needs to change immediately because poorly calibrated algorithms can be misleading and potentially harmful for clinical decision-making. We summarize how to avoid poor calibration at algorithm development and how to assess calibration at algorithm validation, emphasizing balance between model complexity and the available sample size. At external validation, calibration curves require sufficiently large samples. Algorithm updating should be considered for appropriate support of clinical practice. CONCLUSION Efforts are required to avoid poor calibration when developing prediction models, to evaluate calibration when validating models, and to update models when indicated. The ultimate aim is to optimize the utility of predictive analytics for shared decision-making and patient counseling.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ben Van Calster
- Department of Development and Regeneration, KU Leuven, Herestraat 49 box 805, 3000, Leuven, Belgium.
- Department of Biomedical Data Sciences, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, Netherlands.
- , .
| | - David J McLernon
- Medical Statistics Team, Institute of Applied Health Sciences, School of Medicine, Medical Sciences and Nutrition, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK
| | - Maarten van Smeden
- Department of Biomedical Data Sciences, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, Netherlands
- Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, Netherlands
| | - Laure Wynants
- Department of Development and Regeneration, KU Leuven, Herestraat 49 box 805, 3000, Leuven, Belgium
- Department of Epidemiology, CAPHRI Care and Public Health Research Institute, Maastricht University, Maastricht, Netherlands
| | - Ewout W Steyerberg
- Department of Biomedical Data Sciences, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
43
|
Van Calster B, Wynants L, Timmerman D, Steyerberg EW, Collins GS. Predictive analytics in health care: how can we know it works? J Am Med Inform Assoc 2019; 26:1651-1654. [PMID: 31373357 PMCID: PMC6857503 DOI: 10.1093/jamia/ocz130] [Citation(s) in RCA: 77] [Impact Index Per Article: 15.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/16/2019] [Revised: 06/04/2019] [Accepted: 07/04/2019] [Indexed: 12/23/2022] Open
Abstract
There is increasing awareness that the methodology and findings of research should be transparent. This includes studies using artificial intelligence to develop predictive algorithms that make individualized diagnostic or prognostic risk predictions. We argue that it is paramount to make the algorithm behind any prediction publicly available. This allows independent external validation, assessment of performance heterogeneity across settings and over time, and algorithm refinement or updating. Online calculators and apps may aid uptake if accompanied with sufficient information. For algorithms based on "black box" machine learning methods, software for algorithm implementation is a must. Hiding algorithms for commercial exploitation is unethical, because there is no possibility to assess whether algorithms work as advertised or to monitor when and how algorithms are updated. Journals and funders should demand maximal transparency for publications on predictive algorithms, and clinical guidelines should only recommend publicly available algorithms.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ben Van Calster
- Department of Development and Regeneration, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
- Department of Biomedical Data Sciences, Leiden University Medical Center (LUMC), Leiden, The Netherlands
| | - Laure Wynants
- Department of Development and Regeneration, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
| | - Dirk Timmerman
- Department of Development and Regeneration, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
| | - Ewout W Steyerberg
- Department of Biomedical Data Sciences, Leiden University Medical Center (LUMC), Leiden, The Netherlands
| | - Gary S Collins
- Centre for Statistics in Medicine, Nuffield, Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, UK
- Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, UK
| |
Collapse
|
44
|
Virgilio BA, De Blasis I, Sladkevicius P, Moro F, Zannoni GF, Arciuolo D, Mascilini F, Ciccarone F, Timmerman D, Kaijser J, Fruscio R, Van Holsbeke C, Franchi D, Epstein E, Leone FPG, Guerriero S, Czekierdowski A, Scambia G, Testa AC, Valentin L. Imaging in gynecological disease (16): clinical and ultrasound characteristics of serous cystadenofibromas in adnexa. ULTRASOUND IN OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY : THE OFFICIAL JOURNAL OF THE INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY OF ULTRASOUND IN OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY 2019; 54:823-830. [PMID: 30937992 DOI: 10.1002/uog.20277] [Citation(s) in RCA: 18] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/07/2018] [Revised: 02/19/2019] [Accepted: 03/23/2019] [Indexed: 06/09/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To describe the clinical and ultrasound characteristics of serous cystadenofibromas in the adnexa. METHODS This was a retrospective study of patients identified in the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis (IOTA) database, who had a histological diagnosis of serous cystadenofibroma and had undergone preoperative ultrasound examination by an experienced ultrasound examiner, between 1999 and 2012. In the IOTA database, which contains data collected prospectively, the tumors were described using the terms and definitions of the IOTA group. In addition, three authors reviewed, first independently and then together, ultrasound images of serous cystadenofibromas and described them using pattern recognition. RESULTS We identified 233 women with a histological diagnosis of serous cystadenofibroma. In the IOTA database, most cystadenofibromas (67.4%; 157/233) were described as containing solid components but 19.3% (45/233) were described as multilocular cysts and 13.3% (31/233) as unilocular cysts. Papillary projections were described in 52.4% (122/233) of the cystadenofibromas. In 79.5% (97/122) of the cysts with papillary projections, color Doppler signals were absent in the papillary projections. Most cystadenofibromas (83.7%; 195/233) manifested no or minimal color Doppler signals. On retrospective analysis of 201 ultrasound images of serous cystadenofibromas, using pattern recognition, 10 major types of ultrasound appearance were identified. The most common pattern was a unilocular solid cyst with one or more papillary projections, but no other solid components (25.9%; 52/201). The second most common pattern was a multilocular solid mass with small solid component(s), but no papillary projections (19.4%; 39/201). The third and fourth most common patterns were multi- or bilocular cyst (16.9%; 34/201) and unilocular cyst (11.9%; 24/201). Using pattern recognition, shadowing was identified in 39.8% (80/201) of the tumors, and microcystic appearance of the papillary projections was observed in 34 (38.6%) of the 88 tumors containing papillary projections. CONCLUSIONS The ultrasound features of serous cystadenofibromas vary. The most common pattern is a unilocular solid cyst with one or more papillary projections but no other solid components, with absent color Doppler signals. Most serous cystadenofibromas were poorly vascularized on color Doppler examination and many manifested acoustic shadowing. Copyright © 2019 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- B A Virgilio
- Istituto di Ginecologia ed Ostetricia, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome, Italy
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Policlinico Hospital, Abano Terme, Padua, Italy
| | - I De Blasis
- Istituto di Ginecologia ed Ostetricia, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome, Italy
| | - P Sladkevicius
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Skåne University Hospital, Malmö, Sweden
| | - F Moro
- Dipartimento Scienze della Salute della Donna, del Bambino e di Sanità Pubblica, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli, IRCCS, Rome, Italy
| | - G F Zannoni
- Dipartimento Scienze della Salute della Donna e del Bambino, Unità di Ginecopatologia, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli, IRCCS, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome, Italy
| | - D Arciuolo
- Dipartimento Scienze della Salute della Donna e del Bambino, Unità di Ginecopatologia, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli, IRCCS, Rome, Italy
| | - F Mascilini
- Dipartimento Scienze della Salute della Donna, del Bambino e di Sanità Pubblica, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli, IRCCS, Rome, Italy
| | - F Ciccarone
- Dipartimento Scienze della Salute della Donna, del Bambino e di Sanità Pubblica, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli, IRCCS, Rome, Italy
| | - D Timmerman
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospitals, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
| | - J Kaijser
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospitals, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
| | - R Fruscio
- Clinic of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Department of Medicine and Surgery, San Gerardo Hospital, University of Milan-Bicocca, Monza, Italy
| | - C Van Holsbeke
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Ziekenhuis Oost-Limburg, Genk, Belgium
| | - D Franchi
- Preventive Gynecology Unit, Division of Gynecology, European Institute of Oncology, IRCCS, Milan, Italy
| | - E Epstein
- Department of Clinical Science and Education, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Södersjukhuset, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - F P G Leone
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Clinical Sciences Institute, L. Sacco, Milan, Italy
| | - S Guerriero
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Cagliari, Policlinico Universitario Duilio Casula, Monserrato, Cagliari, Italy
| | - A Czekierdowski
- First Department of Gynecological Oncology and Gynecology, Medical University of Lublin, Lublin, Poland
| | - G Scambia
- Dipartimento Scienze della Salute della Donna, del Bambino e di Sanità Pubblica, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli, IRCCS, Rome, Italy
| | - A C Testa
- Istituto di Ginecologia ed Ostetricia, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome, Italy
- Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli, IRCCS, Rome, Italy
| | - L Valentin
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Skåne University Hospital, Malmö, Sweden
- Institution of Clinical Sciences Malmö, Lund University, Lund, Sweden
| |
Collapse
|
45
|
Andreotti RF, Timmerman D, Strachowski LM, Froyman W, Benacerraf BR, Bennett GL, Bourne T, Brown DL, Coleman BG, Frates MC, Goldstein SR, Hamper UM, Horrow MM, Hernanz-Schulman M, Reinhold C, Rose SL, Whitcomb BP, Wolfman WL, Glanc P. O-RADS US Risk Stratification and Management System: A Consensus Guideline from the ACR Ovarian-Adnexal Reporting and Data System Committee. Radiology 2019; 294:168-185. [PMID: 31687921 DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2019191150] [Citation(s) in RCA: 195] [Impact Index Per Article: 39.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/12/2022]
Abstract
The Ovarian-Adnexal Reporting and Data System (O-RADS) US risk stratification and management system is designed to provide consistent interpretations, to decrease or eliminate ambiguity in US reports resulting in a higher probability of accuracy in assigning risk of malignancy to ovarian and other adnexal masses, and to provide a management recommendation for each risk category. It was developed by an international multidisciplinary committee sponsored by the American College of Radiology and applies the standardized reporting tool for US based on the 2018 published lexicon of the O-RADS US working group. For risk stratification, the O-RADS US system recommends six categories (O-RADS 0-5), incorporating the range of normal to high risk of malignancy. This unique system represents a collaboration between the pattern-based approach commonly used in North America and the widely used, European-based, algorithmic-style International Ovarian Tumor Analysis (IOTA) Assessment of Different Neoplasias in the Adnexa model system, a risk prediction model that has undergone successful prospective and external validation. The pattern approach relies on a subgroup of the most predictive descriptors in the lexicon based on a retrospective review of evidence prospectively obtained in the IOTA phase 1-3 prospective studies and other supporting studies that assist in differentiating management schemes in a variety of almost certainly benign lesions. With O-RADS US working group consensus, guidelines for management in the different risk categories are proposed. Both systems have been stratified to reach the same risk categories and management strategies regardless of which is initially used. At this time, O-RADS US is the only lexicon and classification system that encompasses all risk categories with their associated management schemes.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Rochelle F Andreotti
- From the Department of Radiology and Radiological Sciences and Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Vanderbilt University College of Medicine, 1161 21st Ave S, #D3300, Nashville, Tenn 37232 (R.F.A.); Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospitals KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium (D.T.); Department of Radiology, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, Calif (L.M.S.); Department of Development and Regeneration, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium (W.F.); Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium (W.F.); Department of Radiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Brookline, Mass (B.R.B.); Department of Radiology, NYU Langone Health, New York, NY (G.L.B.); Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Queen Charlotte's and Chelsea Hospital, Imperial College London, London, England (T.B.); Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn (D.L.B.); Department of Radiology, Center for Fetal Diagnosis and Treatment, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pa (B.G.C.); Department of Radiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Mass (M.C.F.); Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, New York University School of Medicine, New York, NY (S.R.G.); Department of Radiology, Johns Hopkins University, School of Medicine, Baltimore, Md (U.M.H.); Department of Radiology, Einstein Medical Center, Philadelphia, Pa (M.M.H.); Department of Radiology and Radiological Sciences, Carell Children's Hospital at Vanderbilt, Nashville, Tenn (M.H.S.); Department of Radiology, McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, Canada (C.R.); Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wis (S.L.R.); Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Connecticut School of Medicine, Farmington, Conn (B.P.W.); Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Mt. Sinai Hospital, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada (W.L.W.); and Department of Medical Imaging and Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Toronto, Sunnybrook Research Institute, Toronto, Canada (P.G.)
| | - Dirk Timmerman
- From the Department of Radiology and Radiological Sciences and Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Vanderbilt University College of Medicine, 1161 21st Ave S, #D3300, Nashville, Tenn 37232 (R.F.A.); Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospitals KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium (D.T.); Department of Radiology, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, Calif (L.M.S.); Department of Development and Regeneration, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium (W.F.); Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium (W.F.); Department of Radiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Brookline, Mass (B.R.B.); Department of Radiology, NYU Langone Health, New York, NY (G.L.B.); Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Queen Charlotte's and Chelsea Hospital, Imperial College London, London, England (T.B.); Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn (D.L.B.); Department of Radiology, Center for Fetal Diagnosis and Treatment, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pa (B.G.C.); Department of Radiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Mass (M.C.F.); Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, New York University School of Medicine, New York, NY (S.R.G.); Department of Radiology, Johns Hopkins University, School of Medicine, Baltimore, Md (U.M.H.); Department of Radiology, Einstein Medical Center, Philadelphia, Pa (M.M.H.); Department of Radiology and Radiological Sciences, Carell Children's Hospital at Vanderbilt, Nashville, Tenn (M.H.S.); Department of Radiology, McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, Canada (C.R.); Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wis (S.L.R.); Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Connecticut School of Medicine, Farmington, Conn (B.P.W.); Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Mt. Sinai Hospital, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada (W.L.W.); and Department of Medical Imaging and Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Toronto, Sunnybrook Research Institute, Toronto, Canada (P.G.)
| | - Lori M Strachowski
- From the Department of Radiology and Radiological Sciences and Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Vanderbilt University College of Medicine, 1161 21st Ave S, #D3300, Nashville, Tenn 37232 (R.F.A.); Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospitals KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium (D.T.); Department of Radiology, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, Calif (L.M.S.); Department of Development and Regeneration, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium (W.F.); Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium (W.F.); Department of Radiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Brookline, Mass (B.R.B.); Department of Radiology, NYU Langone Health, New York, NY (G.L.B.); Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Queen Charlotte's and Chelsea Hospital, Imperial College London, London, England (T.B.); Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn (D.L.B.); Department of Radiology, Center for Fetal Diagnosis and Treatment, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pa (B.G.C.); Department of Radiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Mass (M.C.F.); Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, New York University School of Medicine, New York, NY (S.R.G.); Department of Radiology, Johns Hopkins University, School of Medicine, Baltimore, Md (U.M.H.); Department of Radiology, Einstein Medical Center, Philadelphia, Pa (M.M.H.); Department of Radiology and Radiological Sciences, Carell Children's Hospital at Vanderbilt, Nashville, Tenn (M.H.S.); Department of Radiology, McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, Canada (C.R.); Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wis (S.L.R.); Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Connecticut School of Medicine, Farmington, Conn (B.P.W.); Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Mt. Sinai Hospital, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada (W.L.W.); and Department of Medical Imaging and Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Toronto, Sunnybrook Research Institute, Toronto, Canada (P.G.)
| | - Wouter Froyman
- From the Department of Radiology and Radiological Sciences and Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Vanderbilt University College of Medicine, 1161 21st Ave S, #D3300, Nashville, Tenn 37232 (R.F.A.); Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospitals KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium (D.T.); Department of Radiology, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, Calif (L.M.S.); Department of Development and Regeneration, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium (W.F.); Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium (W.F.); Department of Radiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Brookline, Mass (B.R.B.); Department of Radiology, NYU Langone Health, New York, NY (G.L.B.); Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Queen Charlotte's and Chelsea Hospital, Imperial College London, London, England (T.B.); Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn (D.L.B.); Department of Radiology, Center for Fetal Diagnosis and Treatment, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pa (B.G.C.); Department of Radiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Mass (M.C.F.); Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, New York University School of Medicine, New York, NY (S.R.G.); Department of Radiology, Johns Hopkins University, School of Medicine, Baltimore, Md (U.M.H.); Department of Radiology, Einstein Medical Center, Philadelphia, Pa (M.M.H.); Department of Radiology and Radiological Sciences, Carell Children's Hospital at Vanderbilt, Nashville, Tenn (M.H.S.); Department of Radiology, McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, Canada (C.R.); Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wis (S.L.R.); Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Connecticut School of Medicine, Farmington, Conn (B.P.W.); Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Mt. Sinai Hospital, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada (W.L.W.); and Department of Medical Imaging and Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Toronto, Sunnybrook Research Institute, Toronto, Canada (P.G.)
| | - Beryl R Benacerraf
- From the Department of Radiology and Radiological Sciences and Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Vanderbilt University College of Medicine, 1161 21st Ave S, #D3300, Nashville, Tenn 37232 (R.F.A.); Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospitals KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium (D.T.); Department of Radiology, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, Calif (L.M.S.); Department of Development and Regeneration, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium (W.F.); Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium (W.F.); Department of Radiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Brookline, Mass (B.R.B.); Department of Radiology, NYU Langone Health, New York, NY (G.L.B.); Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Queen Charlotte's and Chelsea Hospital, Imperial College London, London, England (T.B.); Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn (D.L.B.); Department of Radiology, Center for Fetal Diagnosis and Treatment, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pa (B.G.C.); Department of Radiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Mass (M.C.F.); Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, New York University School of Medicine, New York, NY (S.R.G.); Department of Radiology, Johns Hopkins University, School of Medicine, Baltimore, Md (U.M.H.); Department of Radiology, Einstein Medical Center, Philadelphia, Pa (M.M.H.); Department of Radiology and Radiological Sciences, Carell Children's Hospital at Vanderbilt, Nashville, Tenn (M.H.S.); Department of Radiology, McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, Canada (C.R.); Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wis (S.L.R.); Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Connecticut School of Medicine, Farmington, Conn (B.P.W.); Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Mt. Sinai Hospital, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada (W.L.W.); and Department of Medical Imaging and Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Toronto, Sunnybrook Research Institute, Toronto, Canada (P.G.)
| | - Genevieve L Bennett
- From the Department of Radiology and Radiological Sciences and Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Vanderbilt University College of Medicine, 1161 21st Ave S, #D3300, Nashville, Tenn 37232 (R.F.A.); Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospitals KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium (D.T.); Department of Radiology, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, Calif (L.M.S.); Department of Development and Regeneration, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium (W.F.); Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium (W.F.); Department of Radiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Brookline, Mass (B.R.B.); Department of Radiology, NYU Langone Health, New York, NY (G.L.B.); Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Queen Charlotte's and Chelsea Hospital, Imperial College London, London, England (T.B.); Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn (D.L.B.); Department of Radiology, Center for Fetal Diagnosis and Treatment, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pa (B.G.C.); Department of Radiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Mass (M.C.F.); Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, New York University School of Medicine, New York, NY (S.R.G.); Department of Radiology, Johns Hopkins University, School of Medicine, Baltimore, Md (U.M.H.); Department of Radiology, Einstein Medical Center, Philadelphia, Pa (M.M.H.); Department of Radiology and Radiological Sciences, Carell Children's Hospital at Vanderbilt, Nashville, Tenn (M.H.S.); Department of Radiology, McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, Canada (C.R.); Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wis (S.L.R.); Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Connecticut School of Medicine, Farmington, Conn (B.P.W.); Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Mt. Sinai Hospital, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada (W.L.W.); and Department of Medical Imaging and Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Toronto, Sunnybrook Research Institute, Toronto, Canada (P.G.)
| | - Tom Bourne
- From the Department of Radiology and Radiological Sciences and Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Vanderbilt University College of Medicine, 1161 21st Ave S, #D3300, Nashville, Tenn 37232 (R.F.A.); Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospitals KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium (D.T.); Department of Radiology, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, Calif (L.M.S.); Department of Development and Regeneration, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium (W.F.); Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium (W.F.); Department of Radiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Brookline, Mass (B.R.B.); Department of Radiology, NYU Langone Health, New York, NY (G.L.B.); Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Queen Charlotte's and Chelsea Hospital, Imperial College London, London, England (T.B.); Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn (D.L.B.); Department of Radiology, Center for Fetal Diagnosis and Treatment, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pa (B.G.C.); Department of Radiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Mass (M.C.F.); Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, New York University School of Medicine, New York, NY (S.R.G.); Department of Radiology, Johns Hopkins University, School of Medicine, Baltimore, Md (U.M.H.); Department of Radiology, Einstein Medical Center, Philadelphia, Pa (M.M.H.); Department of Radiology and Radiological Sciences, Carell Children's Hospital at Vanderbilt, Nashville, Tenn (M.H.S.); Department of Radiology, McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, Canada (C.R.); Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wis (S.L.R.); Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Connecticut School of Medicine, Farmington, Conn (B.P.W.); Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Mt. Sinai Hospital, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada (W.L.W.); and Department of Medical Imaging and Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Toronto, Sunnybrook Research Institute, Toronto, Canada (P.G.)
| | - Douglas L Brown
- From the Department of Radiology and Radiological Sciences and Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Vanderbilt University College of Medicine, 1161 21st Ave S, #D3300, Nashville, Tenn 37232 (R.F.A.); Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospitals KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium (D.T.); Department of Radiology, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, Calif (L.M.S.); Department of Development and Regeneration, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium (W.F.); Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium (W.F.); Department of Radiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Brookline, Mass (B.R.B.); Department of Radiology, NYU Langone Health, New York, NY (G.L.B.); Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Queen Charlotte's and Chelsea Hospital, Imperial College London, London, England (T.B.); Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn (D.L.B.); Department of Radiology, Center for Fetal Diagnosis and Treatment, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pa (B.G.C.); Department of Radiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Mass (M.C.F.); Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, New York University School of Medicine, New York, NY (S.R.G.); Department of Radiology, Johns Hopkins University, School of Medicine, Baltimore, Md (U.M.H.); Department of Radiology, Einstein Medical Center, Philadelphia, Pa (M.M.H.); Department of Radiology and Radiological Sciences, Carell Children's Hospital at Vanderbilt, Nashville, Tenn (M.H.S.); Department of Radiology, McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, Canada (C.R.); Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wis (S.L.R.); Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Connecticut School of Medicine, Farmington, Conn (B.P.W.); Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Mt. Sinai Hospital, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada (W.L.W.); and Department of Medical Imaging and Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Toronto, Sunnybrook Research Institute, Toronto, Canada (P.G.)
| | - Beverly G Coleman
- From the Department of Radiology and Radiological Sciences and Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Vanderbilt University College of Medicine, 1161 21st Ave S, #D3300, Nashville, Tenn 37232 (R.F.A.); Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospitals KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium (D.T.); Department of Radiology, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, Calif (L.M.S.); Department of Development and Regeneration, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium (W.F.); Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium (W.F.); Department of Radiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Brookline, Mass (B.R.B.); Department of Radiology, NYU Langone Health, New York, NY (G.L.B.); Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Queen Charlotte's and Chelsea Hospital, Imperial College London, London, England (T.B.); Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn (D.L.B.); Department of Radiology, Center for Fetal Diagnosis and Treatment, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pa (B.G.C.); Department of Radiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Mass (M.C.F.); Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, New York University School of Medicine, New York, NY (S.R.G.); Department of Radiology, Johns Hopkins University, School of Medicine, Baltimore, Md (U.M.H.); Department of Radiology, Einstein Medical Center, Philadelphia, Pa (M.M.H.); Department of Radiology and Radiological Sciences, Carell Children's Hospital at Vanderbilt, Nashville, Tenn (M.H.S.); Department of Radiology, McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, Canada (C.R.); Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wis (S.L.R.); Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Connecticut School of Medicine, Farmington, Conn (B.P.W.); Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Mt. Sinai Hospital, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada (W.L.W.); and Department of Medical Imaging and Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Toronto, Sunnybrook Research Institute, Toronto, Canada (P.G.)
| | - Mary C Frates
- From the Department of Radiology and Radiological Sciences and Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Vanderbilt University College of Medicine, 1161 21st Ave S, #D3300, Nashville, Tenn 37232 (R.F.A.); Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospitals KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium (D.T.); Department of Radiology, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, Calif (L.M.S.); Department of Development and Regeneration, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium (W.F.); Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium (W.F.); Department of Radiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Brookline, Mass (B.R.B.); Department of Radiology, NYU Langone Health, New York, NY (G.L.B.); Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Queen Charlotte's and Chelsea Hospital, Imperial College London, London, England (T.B.); Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn (D.L.B.); Department of Radiology, Center for Fetal Diagnosis and Treatment, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pa (B.G.C.); Department of Radiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Mass (M.C.F.); Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, New York University School of Medicine, New York, NY (S.R.G.); Department of Radiology, Johns Hopkins University, School of Medicine, Baltimore, Md (U.M.H.); Department of Radiology, Einstein Medical Center, Philadelphia, Pa (M.M.H.); Department of Radiology and Radiological Sciences, Carell Children's Hospital at Vanderbilt, Nashville, Tenn (M.H.S.); Department of Radiology, McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, Canada (C.R.); Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wis (S.L.R.); Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Connecticut School of Medicine, Farmington, Conn (B.P.W.); Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Mt. Sinai Hospital, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada (W.L.W.); and Department of Medical Imaging and Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Toronto, Sunnybrook Research Institute, Toronto, Canada (P.G.)
| | - Steven R Goldstein
- From the Department of Radiology and Radiological Sciences and Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Vanderbilt University College of Medicine, 1161 21st Ave S, #D3300, Nashville, Tenn 37232 (R.F.A.); Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospitals KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium (D.T.); Department of Radiology, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, Calif (L.M.S.); Department of Development and Regeneration, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium (W.F.); Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium (W.F.); Department of Radiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Brookline, Mass (B.R.B.); Department of Radiology, NYU Langone Health, New York, NY (G.L.B.); Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Queen Charlotte's and Chelsea Hospital, Imperial College London, London, England (T.B.); Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn (D.L.B.); Department of Radiology, Center for Fetal Diagnosis and Treatment, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pa (B.G.C.); Department of Radiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Mass (M.C.F.); Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, New York University School of Medicine, New York, NY (S.R.G.); Department of Radiology, Johns Hopkins University, School of Medicine, Baltimore, Md (U.M.H.); Department of Radiology, Einstein Medical Center, Philadelphia, Pa (M.M.H.); Department of Radiology and Radiological Sciences, Carell Children's Hospital at Vanderbilt, Nashville, Tenn (M.H.S.); Department of Radiology, McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, Canada (C.R.); Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wis (S.L.R.); Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Connecticut School of Medicine, Farmington, Conn (B.P.W.); Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Mt. Sinai Hospital, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada (W.L.W.); and Department of Medical Imaging and Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Toronto, Sunnybrook Research Institute, Toronto, Canada (P.G.)
| | - Ulrike M Hamper
- From the Department of Radiology and Radiological Sciences and Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Vanderbilt University College of Medicine, 1161 21st Ave S, #D3300, Nashville, Tenn 37232 (R.F.A.); Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospitals KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium (D.T.); Department of Radiology, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, Calif (L.M.S.); Department of Development and Regeneration, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium (W.F.); Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium (W.F.); Department of Radiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Brookline, Mass (B.R.B.); Department of Radiology, NYU Langone Health, New York, NY (G.L.B.); Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Queen Charlotte's and Chelsea Hospital, Imperial College London, London, England (T.B.); Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn (D.L.B.); Department of Radiology, Center for Fetal Diagnosis and Treatment, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pa (B.G.C.); Department of Radiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Mass (M.C.F.); Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, New York University School of Medicine, New York, NY (S.R.G.); Department of Radiology, Johns Hopkins University, School of Medicine, Baltimore, Md (U.M.H.); Department of Radiology, Einstein Medical Center, Philadelphia, Pa (M.M.H.); Department of Radiology and Radiological Sciences, Carell Children's Hospital at Vanderbilt, Nashville, Tenn (M.H.S.); Department of Radiology, McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, Canada (C.R.); Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wis (S.L.R.); Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Connecticut School of Medicine, Farmington, Conn (B.P.W.); Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Mt. Sinai Hospital, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada (W.L.W.); and Department of Medical Imaging and Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Toronto, Sunnybrook Research Institute, Toronto, Canada (P.G.)
| | - Mindy M Horrow
- From the Department of Radiology and Radiological Sciences and Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Vanderbilt University College of Medicine, 1161 21st Ave S, #D3300, Nashville, Tenn 37232 (R.F.A.); Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospitals KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium (D.T.); Department of Radiology, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, Calif (L.M.S.); Department of Development and Regeneration, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium (W.F.); Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium (W.F.); Department of Radiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Brookline, Mass (B.R.B.); Department of Radiology, NYU Langone Health, New York, NY (G.L.B.); Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Queen Charlotte's and Chelsea Hospital, Imperial College London, London, England (T.B.); Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn (D.L.B.); Department of Radiology, Center for Fetal Diagnosis and Treatment, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pa (B.G.C.); Department of Radiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Mass (M.C.F.); Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, New York University School of Medicine, New York, NY (S.R.G.); Department of Radiology, Johns Hopkins University, School of Medicine, Baltimore, Md (U.M.H.); Department of Radiology, Einstein Medical Center, Philadelphia, Pa (M.M.H.); Department of Radiology and Radiological Sciences, Carell Children's Hospital at Vanderbilt, Nashville, Tenn (M.H.S.); Department of Radiology, McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, Canada (C.R.); Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wis (S.L.R.); Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Connecticut School of Medicine, Farmington, Conn (B.P.W.); Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Mt. Sinai Hospital, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada (W.L.W.); and Department of Medical Imaging and Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Toronto, Sunnybrook Research Institute, Toronto, Canada (P.G.)
| | - Marta Hernanz-Schulman
- From the Department of Radiology and Radiological Sciences and Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Vanderbilt University College of Medicine, 1161 21st Ave S, #D3300, Nashville, Tenn 37232 (R.F.A.); Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospitals KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium (D.T.); Department of Radiology, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, Calif (L.M.S.); Department of Development and Regeneration, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium (W.F.); Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium (W.F.); Department of Radiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Brookline, Mass (B.R.B.); Department of Radiology, NYU Langone Health, New York, NY (G.L.B.); Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Queen Charlotte's and Chelsea Hospital, Imperial College London, London, England (T.B.); Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn (D.L.B.); Department of Radiology, Center for Fetal Diagnosis and Treatment, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pa (B.G.C.); Department of Radiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Mass (M.C.F.); Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, New York University School of Medicine, New York, NY (S.R.G.); Department of Radiology, Johns Hopkins University, School of Medicine, Baltimore, Md (U.M.H.); Department of Radiology, Einstein Medical Center, Philadelphia, Pa (M.M.H.); Department of Radiology and Radiological Sciences, Carell Children's Hospital at Vanderbilt, Nashville, Tenn (M.H.S.); Department of Radiology, McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, Canada (C.R.); Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wis (S.L.R.); Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Connecticut School of Medicine, Farmington, Conn (B.P.W.); Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Mt. Sinai Hospital, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada (W.L.W.); and Department of Medical Imaging and Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Toronto, Sunnybrook Research Institute, Toronto, Canada (P.G.)
| | - Caroline Reinhold
- From the Department of Radiology and Radiological Sciences and Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Vanderbilt University College of Medicine, 1161 21st Ave S, #D3300, Nashville, Tenn 37232 (R.F.A.); Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospitals KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium (D.T.); Department of Radiology, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, Calif (L.M.S.); Department of Development and Regeneration, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium (W.F.); Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium (W.F.); Department of Radiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Brookline, Mass (B.R.B.); Department of Radiology, NYU Langone Health, New York, NY (G.L.B.); Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Queen Charlotte's and Chelsea Hospital, Imperial College London, London, England (T.B.); Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn (D.L.B.); Department of Radiology, Center for Fetal Diagnosis and Treatment, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pa (B.G.C.); Department of Radiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Mass (M.C.F.); Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, New York University School of Medicine, New York, NY (S.R.G.); Department of Radiology, Johns Hopkins University, School of Medicine, Baltimore, Md (U.M.H.); Department of Radiology, Einstein Medical Center, Philadelphia, Pa (M.M.H.); Department of Radiology and Radiological Sciences, Carell Children's Hospital at Vanderbilt, Nashville, Tenn (M.H.S.); Department of Radiology, McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, Canada (C.R.); Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wis (S.L.R.); Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Connecticut School of Medicine, Farmington, Conn (B.P.W.); Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Mt. Sinai Hospital, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada (W.L.W.); and Department of Medical Imaging and Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Toronto, Sunnybrook Research Institute, Toronto, Canada (P.G.)
| | - Stephen L Rose
- From the Department of Radiology and Radiological Sciences and Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Vanderbilt University College of Medicine, 1161 21st Ave S, #D3300, Nashville, Tenn 37232 (R.F.A.); Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospitals KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium (D.T.); Department of Radiology, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, Calif (L.M.S.); Department of Development and Regeneration, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium (W.F.); Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium (W.F.); Department of Radiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Brookline, Mass (B.R.B.); Department of Radiology, NYU Langone Health, New York, NY (G.L.B.); Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Queen Charlotte's and Chelsea Hospital, Imperial College London, London, England (T.B.); Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn (D.L.B.); Department of Radiology, Center for Fetal Diagnosis and Treatment, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pa (B.G.C.); Department of Radiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Mass (M.C.F.); Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, New York University School of Medicine, New York, NY (S.R.G.); Department of Radiology, Johns Hopkins University, School of Medicine, Baltimore, Md (U.M.H.); Department of Radiology, Einstein Medical Center, Philadelphia, Pa (M.M.H.); Department of Radiology and Radiological Sciences, Carell Children's Hospital at Vanderbilt, Nashville, Tenn (M.H.S.); Department of Radiology, McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, Canada (C.R.); Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wis (S.L.R.); Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Connecticut School of Medicine, Farmington, Conn (B.P.W.); Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Mt. Sinai Hospital, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada (W.L.W.); and Department of Medical Imaging and Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Toronto, Sunnybrook Research Institute, Toronto, Canada (P.G.)
| | - Brad P Whitcomb
- From the Department of Radiology and Radiological Sciences and Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Vanderbilt University College of Medicine, 1161 21st Ave S, #D3300, Nashville, Tenn 37232 (R.F.A.); Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospitals KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium (D.T.); Department of Radiology, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, Calif (L.M.S.); Department of Development and Regeneration, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium (W.F.); Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium (W.F.); Department of Radiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Brookline, Mass (B.R.B.); Department of Radiology, NYU Langone Health, New York, NY (G.L.B.); Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Queen Charlotte's and Chelsea Hospital, Imperial College London, London, England (T.B.); Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn (D.L.B.); Department of Radiology, Center for Fetal Diagnosis and Treatment, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pa (B.G.C.); Department of Radiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Mass (M.C.F.); Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, New York University School of Medicine, New York, NY (S.R.G.); Department of Radiology, Johns Hopkins University, School of Medicine, Baltimore, Md (U.M.H.); Department of Radiology, Einstein Medical Center, Philadelphia, Pa (M.M.H.); Department of Radiology and Radiological Sciences, Carell Children's Hospital at Vanderbilt, Nashville, Tenn (M.H.S.); Department of Radiology, McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, Canada (C.R.); Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wis (S.L.R.); Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Connecticut School of Medicine, Farmington, Conn (B.P.W.); Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Mt. Sinai Hospital, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada (W.L.W.); and Department of Medical Imaging and Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Toronto, Sunnybrook Research Institute, Toronto, Canada (P.G.)
| | - Wendy L Wolfman
- From the Department of Radiology and Radiological Sciences and Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Vanderbilt University College of Medicine, 1161 21st Ave S, #D3300, Nashville, Tenn 37232 (R.F.A.); Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospitals KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium (D.T.); Department of Radiology, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, Calif (L.M.S.); Department of Development and Regeneration, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium (W.F.); Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium (W.F.); Department of Radiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Brookline, Mass (B.R.B.); Department of Radiology, NYU Langone Health, New York, NY (G.L.B.); Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Queen Charlotte's and Chelsea Hospital, Imperial College London, London, England (T.B.); Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn (D.L.B.); Department of Radiology, Center for Fetal Diagnosis and Treatment, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pa (B.G.C.); Department of Radiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Mass (M.C.F.); Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, New York University School of Medicine, New York, NY (S.R.G.); Department of Radiology, Johns Hopkins University, School of Medicine, Baltimore, Md (U.M.H.); Department of Radiology, Einstein Medical Center, Philadelphia, Pa (M.M.H.); Department of Radiology and Radiological Sciences, Carell Children's Hospital at Vanderbilt, Nashville, Tenn (M.H.S.); Department of Radiology, McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, Canada (C.R.); Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wis (S.L.R.); Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Connecticut School of Medicine, Farmington, Conn (B.P.W.); Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Mt. Sinai Hospital, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada (W.L.W.); and Department of Medical Imaging and Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Toronto, Sunnybrook Research Institute, Toronto, Canada (P.G.)
| | - Phyllis Glanc
- From the Department of Radiology and Radiological Sciences and Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Vanderbilt University College of Medicine, 1161 21st Ave S, #D3300, Nashville, Tenn 37232 (R.F.A.); Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospitals KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium (D.T.); Department of Radiology, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, Calif (L.M.S.); Department of Development and Regeneration, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium (W.F.); Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium (W.F.); Department of Radiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Brookline, Mass (B.R.B.); Department of Radiology, NYU Langone Health, New York, NY (G.L.B.); Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Queen Charlotte's and Chelsea Hospital, Imperial College London, London, England (T.B.); Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn (D.L.B.); Department of Radiology, Center for Fetal Diagnosis and Treatment, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pa (B.G.C.); Department of Radiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Mass (M.C.F.); Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, New York University School of Medicine, New York, NY (S.R.G.); Department of Radiology, Johns Hopkins University, School of Medicine, Baltimore, Md (U.M.H.); Department of Radiology, Einstein Medical Center, Philadelphia, Pa (M.M.H.); Department of Radiology and Radiological Sciences, Carell Children's Hospital at Vanderbilt, Nashville, Tenn (M.H.S.); Department of Radiology, McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, Canada (C.R.); Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wis (S.L.R.); Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Connecticut School of Medicine, Farmington, Conn (B.P.W.); Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Mt. Sinai Hospital, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada (W.L.W.); and Department of Medical Imaging and Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Toronto, Sunnybrook Research Institute, Toronto, Canada (P.G.)
| |
Collapse
|
46
|
Froyman W, Timmerman D. Methods of Assessing Ovarian Masses: International Ovarian Tumor Analysis Approach. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am 2019; 46:625-641. [PMID: 31677746 DOI: 10.1016/j.ogc.2019.07.003] [Citation(s) in RCA: 21] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/20/2022]
Abstract
There are many diagnostic methods to assist clinicians in assessing adnexal masses on ultrasound. After suggesting a standardized terminology and measurement technique to evaluate adnexal masses, the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis (IOTA) group has developed different strategies such as the Simple Rules and Assessment of Different Neoplasias in the adneXa (ADNEX) model, which have been shown to outperform other available methods. Besides differentiating between benign neoplasms and malignancies, the ADNEX model can also give the predicted risk for different subtypes of malignant adnexal masses, which is clinically very relevant for guiding patient management.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Wouter Froyman
- Department of Development and Regeneration, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium; Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospitals Leuven, Herestraat 49, Leuven 3000, Belgium
| | - Dirk Timmerman
- Department of Development and Regeneration, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium; Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospitals Leuven, Herestraat 49, Leuven 3000, Belgium.
| |
Collapse
|
47
|
de Lima CA, Silva Rodrigues IS, Martins-Filho A, Côbo Micheli D, Martins Tavares-Murta B, Candido Murta EF, Simões Nomelini R. Cytokines in peritoneal fluid of ovarian neoplasms. J OBSTET GYNAECOL 2019; 40:401-405. [DOI: 10.1080/01443615.2019.1633516] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/21/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Cid Almeida de Lima
- Research Institute of Oncology (IPON)/Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Uberaba, Brazil
| | | | - Agrimaldo Martins-Filho
- Research Institute of Oncology (IPON)/Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Uberaba, Brazil
| | - Douglas Côbo Micheli
- Discipline of Pharmacology, Federal University of Triângulo Mineiro, Uberaba, Brazil
| | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
48
|
Timor-Tritsch IE, Foley CE, Brandon C, Yoon E, Ciaffarrano J, Monteagudo A, Mittal K, Boyd L. New sonographic marker of borderline ovarian tumor: microcystic pattern of papillae and solid components. ULTRASOUND IN OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY : THE OFFICIAL JOURNAL OF THE INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY OF ULTRASOUND IN OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY 2019; 54:395-402. [PMID: 30950132 DOI: 10.1002/uog.20283] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/14/2018] [Revised: 01/02/2019] [Accepted: 01/24/2019] [Indexed: 06/09/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To describe and evaluate the utility of a new sonographic microcystic pattern, which is typical of borderline ovarian tumor (BOT) papillary projections, solid component(s) and/or septa, as a new ultrasound marker that is capable of distinguishing BOT from other adnexal masses, and to present/obtain histologic confirmation. METHODS In this retrospective study, we identified women with a histologic diagnosis of BOT following surgical resection who had undergone preoperative transvaginal ultrasound (TVS) examination. All images were reviewed for presence or absence of thin-walled, fluid-filled cluster(s) of 1-3-mm cystic formations, associated with solid component(s), papillary projections and/or septa. From the same cases, histopathologic slides of each BOT were examined for presence of any of these microcystic features which had been identified on TVS. To confirm that the microcystic TVS pattern is unique to BOTs, we also selected randomly from our ultrasound and surgical database 20 cases of epithelial ovarian cancer and 20 cases of benign cystadenoma, for review by the same pathologists. To confirm the novelty of our findings, we searched PubMed for literature published in the English language between 2010 and 2018 to determine whether the association between microcystic tissue pattern and BOT has been described previously. RESULTS Included in the final analysis were 62 patients (67 ovaries) with preoperative TVS and surgically confirmed BOT on pathologic examination. The mean patient age at surgery was 39.8 years. The mean BOT size at TVS was 60.7 mm. Of the 67 BOTs, 47 (70.1%) were serous, 15 (22.4%) were mucinous and five (7.5%) were seromucinous. We observed on TVS a microcystic pattern in the papillary projections, solid component(s) and/or septa in 60 (89.6%) of the 67 BOTs, including 46 (97.9%) of the 47 serous BOTs, 11 (73.3%) of the 15 mucinous BOTs and three (60.0%) of the five seromucinous BOTs. On microscopic evaluation, 60 (89.6%) of the 67 samples had characteristic 1-3-mm fluid-filled cysts similar to those seen on TVS. In seven cases there was a discrepancy between sonographic and histologic observation of a microcystic pattern. The 20 cystadenomas were mostly unilocular and/or multilocular and largely avascular. None of them or the 20 epithelial ovarian malignancies displayed microcystic characteristics, either on TVS or at histology. On review of 23 published articles in the English medical literature, containing 163 sonographic images of BOT, we found that, while all images contained it, there was no description of the microcystic tissue pattern. CONCLUSION We report herein a novel sonographic marker of BOT, a 'microcystic pattern' of BOT papillary projections, solid component(s) and/or septa. This was seen in the majority of both serous and mucinous BOT cases. Importantly, based on comparison of sonographic images and histopathology of benign entities and malignancies, the microcystic appearance seems to be unique to BOTs. No similar description has been published previously. Utilization of this new marker should help to identify BOT correctly, discriminating it from ovarian cancer and benign ovarian pathology, and should ensure appropriate clinical and surgical management. Copyright © 2019 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- I E Timor-Tritsch
- New York University School of Medicine, Langone Health, Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Division of Obstetrical and Gynecologic Ultrasound, New York, NY, USA
| | - C E Foley
- New York University School of Medicine, Langone Health, Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Division of Obstetrical and Gynecologic Ultrasound, New York, NY, USA
| | - C Brandon
- New York University School of Medicine, Langone Health, Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Division of Obstetrical and Gynecologic Ultrasound, New York, NY, USA
| | - E Yoon
- New York University School of Medicine, Department of Pathology, Division of Surgical Pathology, New York, NY, USA
| | - J Ciaffarrano
- New York University School of Medicine, Department of Pathology, Division of Surgical Pathology, New York, NY, USA
| | - A Monteagudo
- Carnegie Imaging for Women, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA
| | - K Mittal
- New York University School of Medicine, Department of Pathology, Division of Surgical Pathology, New York, NY, USA
| | - L Boyd
- New York University School of Medicine, Langone Health, Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Division of Gynecologic Oncology, New York, NY, USA
| |
Collapse
|
49
|
Moro F, Leombroni M, Pasciuto T, Trivellizzi IN, Mascilini F, Ciccarone F, Zannoni GF, Fanfani F, Scambia G, Testa AC. Synchronous primary cancers of endometrium and ovary vs endometrial cancer with ovarian metastasis: an observational study. ULTRASOUND IN OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY : THE OFFICIAL JOURNAL OF THE INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY OF ULTRASOUND IN OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY 2019; 53:827-835. [PMID: 30620432 DOI: 10.1002/uog.20213] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/14/2018] [Revised: 12/21/2018] [Accepted: 12/24/2018] [Indexed: 06/09/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To compare the ultrasound characteristics of patients with synchronous primary cancers of the endometrium and ovary vs those of patients with endometrial cancer with ovarian metastasis. METHODS This was a single-institution retrospective observational study of patients with a histological diagnosis of endometrial cancer and an ovarian malignant mass, who had undergone preoperative ultrasound examination at our unit. Based on the histological diagnosis, patients were classified into two groups: those with synchronous primary cancers of the endometrium and ovary (synchronous group) and patients with endometrial cancer with ovarian metastasis (metastasis group). We compared the ultrasound features of ovarian malignant masses and of endometrial cancers between the two groups. Student's t-test, Mann-Whitney U-test, χ2 test or Fisher's exact test were used for comparisons of variables between the two histological groups, as appropriate. RESULTS We identified 131 patients, of whom 51 had synchronous primary cancers of the endometrium and ovary (synchronous group) and 80 had endometrial cancer with ovarian metastasis (metastasis group). On ultrasound examination, ovarian masses in the synchronous group were more often multilocular-solid and less often bilateral than those in the metastasis group. With respect to the ultrasound features of the endometrial lesions, the median largest diameter was 29 (range, 11-118) mm in the synchronous group in comparison with 51.5 (range, 6-150) mm in the metastasis group (P < 0.0001). Endometrial lesions in the synchronous group presented more often with no myometrial infiltration and less often with a multiple-vessel pattern on color Doppler compared with the endometrial lesions in the metastasis group. CONCLUSIONS Synchronous primary cancers of the endometrium and ovary have significantly different sonomorphological patterns compared with endometrial cancer with ovarian metastasis. Ovarian masses in women with synchronous primary cancers of the endometrium and ovary appeared as unilateral multilocular-solid or solid masses, whereas ovarian masses in women with endometrial cancer with ovarian metastasis were mostly bilateral solid masses. The different sonomorphology of these two cancers may facilitate their preoperative identification, helping the surgeon to determine optimum management for the patient. Copyright © 2019 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- F Moro
- Dipartimento Scienze della Salute della Donna e del Bambino, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli, IRCCS, Rome, Italy
| | - M Leombroni
- Dipartimento Scienze della Salute della Donna e del Bambino, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli, IRCCS, Rome, Italy
- Dipartimento di Medicina e Scienze dell'Invecchiamento, Università G. d'Annunzio, Chieti-Pescara, Italy
| | - T Pasciuto
- Dipartimento Scienze della Salute della Donna e del Bambino, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli, IRCCS, Rome, Italy
| | - I N Trivellizzi
- Dipartimento Scienze della Salute della Donna e del Bambino, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli, IRCCS, Rome, Italy
| | - F Mascilini
- Dipartimento Scienze della Salute della Donna e del Bambino, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli, IRCCS, Rome, Italy
| | - F Ciccarone
- Dipartimento Scienze della Salute della Donna e del Bambino, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli, IRCCS, Rome, Italy
| | - G F Zannoni
- Instituto di Istopatologia, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli, IRCCS, Rome, Italy
| | - F Fanfani
- Dipartimento di Medicina e Scienze dell'Invecchiamento, Università G. d'Annunzio, Chieti-Pescara, Italy
| | - G Scambia
- Dipartimento Scienze della Salute della Donna e del Bambino, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli, IRCCS, Rome, Italy
| | - A C Testa
- Istituto di Ginecologia e Ostetricia, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
50
|
Hidalgo JJ, Ros F, Aubá M, Errasti T, Olartecoechea B, Ruiz-Zambrana Á, Alcázar JL. Prospective external validation of IOTA three-step strategy for characterizing and classifying adnexal masses and retrospective assessment of alternative two-step strategy using simple-rules risk. ULTRASOUND IN OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY : THE OFFICIAL JOURNAL OF THE INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY OF ULTRASOUND IN OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY 2019; 53:693-700. [PMID: 30353585 DOI: 10.1002/uog.20163] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/30/2018] [Revised: 10/13/2018] [Accepted: 10/15/2018] [Indexed: 06/08/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES To perform an external validation of the diagnostic performance of the three-step strategy proposed by the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis (IOTA) group for classifying adnexal masses as benign or malignant, when ultrasound is performed by non-expert sonographers in the first two steps. The second objective was to assess the diagnostic performance of an alternative strategy using simple-rules risk (SRR), instead of simple rules (SR), in the second step. METHODS This was a prospective observational study conducted at two university hospitals, from September 2015 to August 2017, of consecutive patients diagnosed with an adnexal mass. All women were evaluated by ultrasound using the IOTA three-step strategy. Non-expert sonographers performed the first step (use of simple descriptors to classify the masses) and the second step (use of SR if the mass could not be classified in the first step); masses that could not be classified in the first two steps were categorized by an expert sonographer based on their subjective assessment (third step). The reference standard was histological diagnosis in patients who underwent surgery or at least 12 months of follow-up in cases managed expectantly. The sensitivity, specificity, positive (LR+) and negative (LR-) likelihood ratios and overall accuracy of the IOTA three-step strategy were estimated. Furthermore, we evaluated retrospectively an alternative two-step strategy using SRR in the second step to categorize the masses not classifiable with simple descriptors, classifying the lesions as being of low, intermediate or high risk for malignancy. The diagnostic performance of this strategy was estimated by calculating its sensitivity and specificity, assuming surgical intervention for intermediate- or high-risk lesions. RESULTS The study included 283 patients (median age, 48 (range, 18-90) years), of whom 165 (58.3%) were premenopausal and 118 (41.7%) postmenopausal. Two hundred and sixteen (76.3%) women underwent surgery (154 benign and 62 malignant masses) and 67 (23.7%) were managed expectantly with serial ultrasound follow-up for at least 12 months. All expectantly managed masses were considered benign because no sonographic changes suggestive of malignancy were observed during follow-up. Simple descriptors could be applied in 126 (44.5%) masses. Of the remaining 157 lesions, 112 (39.6%) could be characterized using SR. Therefore, 238 (84.1%) masses could be classified by non-expert sonographers in the first two steps. Of the remaining 45 (15.9%) masses, all could be classified by an expert sonographer. Overall sensitivity, specificity, LR+ and LR- of the IOTA three-step strategy were 95.2%, 97.7%, 42.1 and 0.05, respectively. The diagnostic accuracy was 97.2%. Following the two-step strategy using SRR in the second step, of the 157 lesions not classified with simple descriptors, 42, 38 and 77 presented low, intermediate or high risk for malignancy, respectively. Based on this method, 210 women would have undergone surgical treatment. The sensitivity and specificity of this two-step strategy were 98.4% and 63.8%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS The IOTA three-step strategy shows high accuracy for discriminating between benign and malignant adnexal lesions when used by non-expert sonographers. An alternative strategy using the SRR calculator in the second step might improve on this diagnostic performance by decreasing the number of surgical interventions and increasing sensitivity. Copyright © 2018 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- J J Hidalgo
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Hospital Clínico Universitario de Valencia, Valencia, Spain
- Unidad Predepartamental de Medicina, Universitat Jaume I. Castellón, Castellón de la Plana, Spain
| | - F Ros
- Unidad Predepartamental de Medicina, Universitat Jaume I. Castellón, Castellón de la Plana, Spain
| | - M Aubá
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Clínica Universidad de Navarra, University of Navarra, Pamplona, Spain
| | - T Errasti
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Clínica Universidad de Navarra, University of Navarra, Pamplona, Spain
| | - B Olartecoechea
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Clínica Universidad de Navarra, University of Navarra, Pamplona, Spain
| | - Á Ruiz-Zambrana
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Clínica Universidad de Navarra, University of Navarra, Pamplona, Spain
| | - J L Alcázar
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Clínica Universidad de Navarra, University of Navarra, Pamplona, Spain
| |
Collapse
|