Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention

Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention (아시아태평양암예방학회)
권호 표지

Comparison of Effectiveness in Differentiating Benign from Malignant Ovarian Masses between IOTA Simple Rules and Subjective Sonographic Assessment

  • Published : 2016.09.01
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Background: To compare diagnostic performance in differentiating benign from malignant ovarian masses between IOTA (the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis) simple rules and subjective sonographic assessment. Materials and Methods: Women scheduled for elective surgery because of ovarian masses were recruited into the study and underwent ultrasound examination within 24 hours of surgery to apply the IOTA simple rules by general gynecologists and to record video clips for subjective assessment by an experienced sonographer. The diagnostic performance of the IOTA rules and subjective assessment for differentiation between benign and malignant masses was compared. The gold standard diagnosis was pathological or operative findings. Results: A total of 150 ovarian masses were covered, comprising 105 (70%) benign and 45 (30%) malignant. Of them, the IOTA simple rules could be applied in 119 (79.3%) and were inconclusive in 31 (20.7%) whereas subjective assessment could be applied in all cases (100%). The sensitivity and the specificity of the IOTA simple rules and subjective assessment were not significantly different, 82.9% vs 86.7% and 94.0% vs 94.3% respectively. The agreement of the two methods in prediction was high with a Kappa index of 0.835. Conclusions: Both techniques had a high diagnostic performance in differentiation between benign and malignant ovarian masses but the IOTA rules had a relatively high rate of inconclusive results. The IOTA rules can be used as an effective screening technique by general gynecologists but when the results are inconclusive they should consult experienced sonographers.

Keywords

References

  1. Alcazar JL, Guerriero S, Laparte C, et al (2011). Contribution of power Doppler blood flow mapping to gray-scale ultrasound for predicting malignancy of adnexal masses in symptomatic and asymptomatic women. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol, 155, 99-105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2010.11.010
  2. Alcazar JL, Pascual MA, Olartecoechea B, et al (2013). IOTA simple rules for discriminating between benign and malignant adnexal masses: prospective external validation. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol, 42, 467-1.
  3. Di Legge A, Testa AC, Ameye L, et al (2012). Lesion size affects diagnostic performance of IOTA logistic regression models, IOTA simple rules and risk of malignancy index in discriminating between benign and malignant adnexal masses. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol, 40, 345-54. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.11167
  4. Guerriero S, Alcazar JL, Pascual MA, et al (2011). The diagnosis of ovarian cancer: is color Doppler imaging reproducible and accurate in examiners with different degrees of experience? J Womens Health (Larchmt.), 20, 273-7. https://doi.org/10.1089/jwh.2010.2277
  5. Hafeez S, Sufian S, Beg M, et al (2013). Role of ultrasound in characterization of ovarian masses. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, 14, 603-6. https://doi.org/10.7314/APJCP.2013.14.1.603
  6. Kaijser J, Bourne T, Valentin L, et al (2013a). Improving strategies for diagnosing ovarian cancer: a summary of the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis (IOTA) studies. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol, 41, 9-20. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.12323
  7. Kaijser J, Van GT, Van HK, et al (2013b). A comparison between an ultrasound based prediction model (LR2) and the risk of ovarian malignancy algorithm (ROMA) to assess the risk of malignancy in women with an adnexal mass. Gynecol Oncol, 129, 377-83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2013.01.018
  8. Lerner JP, Timor-Tritsch IE, Federman A, et al (1994). Transvaginal ultrasonographic characterization of ovarian masses with an improved, weighted scoring system. Am J Obstet Gynecol, 170, 81-5. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0002-9378(13)70284-9
  9. Sassone AM, Timor-Tritsch IE, Artner A, et al (1991). Transvaginal sonographic characterization of ovarian disease: evaluation of a new scoring system to predict ovarian malignancy. Obstet Gynecol, 78, 70-6.
  10. Sayasneh A, Kaijser J, Preisler J, et al (2013). A multicenter prospective external validation of the diagnostic performance of IOTA simple descriptors and rules to characterize ovarian masses. Gynecol Oncol, 130, 140-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2013.04.003
  11. Tantipalakorn C, Wanapirak C, Khunamornpong S, et al (2014). IOTA simple rules in differentiating between benign and malignant ovarian tumors. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, 15, 5123-6. https://doi.org/10.7314/APJCP.2014.15.13.5123
  12. Timmerman D, Testa AC, Bourne T, et al (2008). Simple ultrasound-based rules for the diagnosis of ovarian cancer. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol, 31, 681-90. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.5365
  13. Timmerman D, Van CB, Testa AC, et al (2010). Ovarian cancer prediction in adnexal masses using ultrasound-based logistic regression models: a temporal and external validation study by the IOTA group. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol, 36, 226-34.
  14. Tinnangwattana D, Vichak-Ururote L, Tontivuthikul P, et al (2015). IOTA simple rules in differentiating between benign and malignant adnexal masses by Non-expert Examiners. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, 16, 3835-8. https://doi.org/10.7314/APJCP.2015.16.9.3835
  15. Tongsong T, Wanapirak C, Neeyalavira V, et al (2009). E-flow doppler indices for prediction of benign and malignant ovarian tumors. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, 10, 139-42.
  16. Tongsong T, Wanapirak C, Sukpan K, et al (2007). Subjective sonographic assessment for differentiation between malignant and benign adnexal masses. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, 8, 124-6.