External validation of mathematical models to distinguish between benign and malignant adnexal tumors: A multicenter study by the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis group

Clinical Cancer Research

Volumn 13, Issue 15, 2007, Pages 4440-4447

  Van Holsbeke, Caroline ^a,c   Van Calster, Ben ^b   Valentin, Lil ^f   Testa, Antonia C ^g   Ferrazzi, Enrico ^h   Dimou, Ioannis ^d   Lu, Chuan ^e   Moerman, Philippe ^a   Van Huffel, Sabine ^b   Vergote, Ignace ^a   Timmerman, Dirk ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS LEUVEN   (Belgium)

^b Katholieke Universiteit Leuven   (Belgium)

^c DEPARTMENT OF CARDIOLOGY   (Belgium)

^d TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY OF CRETE   (Greece)

^e ABERYSTWYTH UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^f LUND UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Sweden)

^g CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY   (Italy)

^h UNIVERSITY OF MILAN   (Italy)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CA 125 ANTIGEN;

ADNEXA DISEASE; ADNEXA TUMOR; AREA UNDER THE CURVE; ARTICLE; ARTIFICIAL NEURAL NETWORK; CANCER RISK; CLINICAL TRIAL; COLOR ULTRASOUND FLOWMETRY; EXTERNAL VALIDATION PROCESS; FEMALE; HUMAN; INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION; LOGISTIC REGRESSION ANALYSIS; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MATHEMATICAL MODEL; MULTICENTER STUDY; OVARY TUMOR; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; RADIAL BASIS FUNCTION KERNEL; RELEVANCE VECTOR MACHINE; ROC CURVE; SCORING SYSTEM; SUPPORT VECTOR MACHINE; TRANSVAGINAL ECHOGRAPHY; VALIDATION PROCESS;

ADNEXAL DISEASES; CA-125 ANTIGEN; DIAGNOSIS, DIFFERENTIAL; FEMALE; HUMANS; INTERNATIONAL AGENCIES; LOGISTIC MODELS; MODELS, THEORETICAL; NEURAL NETWORKS (COMPUTER); OVARIAN NEOPLASMS; PREOPERATIVE CARE; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES;

EID: 34547668779     PISSN: 10780432     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-06-2958     Document Type: Article

References (46)

1. Buchweitz O, Matthias S, Muller-Steinhardt M, Malik E. Laparoscopy in patients over 60 years old: a prospective randomized evaluation of laparoscopic versus open adnexectomy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2005;193:1364-8.
2. Medeiros LR, Fachel JM, Garry R, Stein AT, Furness S. Laparoscopy versus laparotomy for benign ovarian tumours. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2005;20:CD004751.
3. Carley ME, Klingele CJ, Gebhart JB, Webb MJ, Wilson TO. Laparoscopy versus laparotomy in the management of benign unilateral adnexall masses. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc 2002;9:321-6.
4. Vergote I, De Brabanter J, Fyles A, Bertelsen K, Einhorn N, Sevelda P. Prognostic importance of degree of differentiation and cyst rupture in stage I invasive epithelial ovarian carcinoma. Lancet 2001;357:176-82.
5. Hacker NF, Berek JS, Lagasse LD. Primary cytoreductive surgery for epithelial ovarian cancer. Obstet Gynecol 1983;61:431-20.
6. Sutton GP, Stehman FB, Einhorn LH. Ten-year follow-up of patients receiving cisplatin, doxorubicin, and cyclophosphamide chemotherapy for advanced epithelial ovarian carcinoma. J Clin Oncol 1989;7:223-9.
7. Redman JR, Petroni GR, Saigo PE. Prognostic factors in advanced ovarian carcinoma. J Clin Oncol 1986;4:515-23.
8. Timmerman D, Schwä rzler P, Collins WP, Claerhout F, Coenen M, Amant F. Subjective assessment of adnexal masses with the use of ultrasonography: an analysis of interobserver variability and experience. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1999;13:11-6.
9. Valentin L. Prospective cross-validation of Doppler ultrasound examination and gray-scale ultrasound imaging for discrimination of benign and malignant pelvic masses. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1999;14:273-83.
10. Timmerman D. The use of mathematical models to evaluate pelvic masses: can they beat an expert operator? Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 2004;18:91-104.
11. Timmerman D, Testa AC, Bourne T, Ferrazzi E, Ameye L, Konstantinovic ML; International Ovarian Tumor Analysis Group. Logistic regression model to distinguish between the benign and malignant adnexal mass before surgery: a multicenter study by the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis Group. J Clin Oncol 2005;23:8794-801.
12. Jacobs I, Oram D, Fairbanks J, Turner J, Frost C, Grudzinskas J. A risk of malignancy index incorporating CA125, ultrasound and menopausal status for the accurate preoperative diagnosis of ovarian cancer. BJOG 1990;97:922-9.
13. Tingulstad S, Hagen B, Skjeldestad FE, Onsrud M, Kiserud T, Halvorsen T. Evaluation of a risk of malignancy index based on serum CA 125, ultrasound findings and menopausal status in the preoperative diagnosis of pelvic masses. BJOG 1996;103:826-31.
14. Lerner JP, Timor-Tritsch IE, Federman A, Abramovich G. Transvaginal ultrasonographic characterization of ovarian masses with an improved, weighted scoring system. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1994;170:81-5.
15. Minaretzis D, Tsionou C, Tziortziotis D, Michalas S, Aravantinos D. Ovarian tumors: prediction of the probability of malignancy by using patient's age and tumor morphologic features with a logistic model. Gynecol Obstet Invest 1994;38:140-4.
16. Tailor A, Jurkovic D, Bourne T, Collins WP, Campbell S. Sonographic prediction of malignancy in adnexal masses using multivariate logistic regression analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1997;10:41-7.
17. Prömpeler HJ, Madjar H, Sauerbrei W, Lattermann U, Pfleiderer A. Diagnostic formula for the differentiation of adnexal tumors by transvaginal sonography. Obstet Gynecol 1997;89:428-33.
18. Timmerman D, Bourne T, Tailor A, Collins WP, Verrelst H, Vandenberghe K. A comparison of methods for preoperative discrimination between malignant and benign adnexal masses: The development of a new logistic regression model. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1999;181:57-65.
19. Timmerman D, Verrelst H, Bourne TH, De Moor B, Collins WP, Vergote I. Artificial neural network models for the preoperative discrimination between malignant and benign adnexal masses. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1999;13:17-25.
20. Lu C, Suykens JAK, Timmerman D, Vergote I, Van Huffel S. Linear and nonlinear preoperative classification of ovarian tumors. Chapter 11, Knowledge based intelligent system for health care. In: Ichimura T, Yoshida K, editors. Vol. 7, International Series on Advanced Intelligence. Magill, Australia: Advanced Knowledge International; 2004. p. 343-82.
21. Jokubkiene L, Sladkevicius P, Valentin L. Does three-dimensional power Doppler ultrasound help in discrimination between benign and malignant ovarian masses? Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2007;29:215-25.
22. Lu C, Van Gestel T, Suykens JAK, Van Huffel S, Vergote I, Timmerman D. Preoperative prediction of malignancy of ovarium tumor using least squares support vector machines. Artif Intell Med 2003;28:281-306.
23. DePriest PD, Varner E, Powell J, Fried A, Puls L, Higgins R. The efficacy of a sonographic morphology index inidentifying ovarian cancer: amulti-institutional investigation. Gynecol Oncol 1994;55:174-8.
24. Ferrazzi E, Zanetta G, Dordoni D, Berlanda N, Mezzopane R, Lissoni G. Transvaginal ultrasonographic characterization of ovarianmasses: a comparison of five scoring systems in a multicenter study. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1997;10:192-7.
25. Alcazar JL, Mercé L, Laparte C, Jurado M, Lopez-Garcia G. A new scoring systemto differentiate benign from malignant adnexal masses. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2003;188:685-92.
26. Sassone AM, Timor-Tritsch I, Artner A, Westhoff C, Warren W. Transvaginal sonographic characterization of ovarian disease: evaluation of a newscoring system to predict ovarian malignancy. Obstet Gynecol 1991;78:70-6.
27. Alcazar JL, Jurado M. Using a logistic model to predict malignancy of adnexal masses based on menopausal status, ultrasound morphology and color Doppler findings. Gynecol Oncol 1998;69:146-50.
28. Biagiotti R, Desii C, Vanzi E, Gacci G. Predicting ovarian malignancy: application of artificial neural networks to transvaginal and color Doppler flow US. Radiology 1999;210:399-403.
29. Clayton RD, Snowden S, Weston MJ, Mogensen O, Eastaugh J, Lane G. Neural networks in the diagnosis of malignant ovarian tumours. BJOG 1999;106:1078-82.
30. Bishop CM. Neural networks for pattern recognition. Oxford University Press; 1996.
31. Tailor A, Jurkovic D, Bourne TH, Collins WP, Campbell S. Sonographic prediction of malignancy in adnexal masses using an artificial neural network. BJOG 1999;106:21-30.
32. Suykens J, Van Gestel T, De Brabanter J, De Moor B, Vandewalle J. Least square support vector machines. Singapore: World Scientific.
33. MacKay D. Probable networks and plausible predictions - a review of practical Bayesian methods for supervised neural networks. Network: Computation in Neural Systems 1995;6:469-505.
34. Aslam N, Banerjee S, Carr J, Savvas M, Hooper R, Jurkovic D. Prospective evaluation of logistic regression models for the diagnosis of ovarian cancer. Obstet Gynecol 2000;96:75-80.
35. Hosmer DW, Lemeshow S. Applied logistic regression. Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics. New York; 2000.
36. Vapnik VN. Statistical learning theory. New York: Wiley; 1998.
37. Tipping ME. Sparse Bayesian learning and the relevance vector machine. J Mach Learn Res 2001;1:211-44.
38. DeLong ER, DeLong DM, Clarke-Pearson DL. Comparing the areas under two or more correlated receiver operating characteristic curves. A nonparametric approach. Biometrics 1988;44:837-45.
39. Hanley JA, McNeil B. The meaning and use of the area under a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. Radiology 1982;143:29-36.
40. Pepe M, Longton G, Anderson G, Schummer M. Selecting differentially expressed genes from microarray experiments. Biometrics 2003;59:133-42.
41. Mol BW, Boll D, De Kanter M, Heintz P, Sijmons E, Oei G. Distinguishing the benign and malignant adnexal mass: an external validation of prognostic models. Gynecol Oncol 2001;80:162-7.
42. Valentin L. Comparison of Lerner score, Doppler ultrasound examination, and their combination for discrimination between benign and adnexal masses. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2000;15:143-7.
43. Valentin l, Hagen B, Tingulstad S, Eik-Nes S. Comparison of "pattern recognition" and logistic regression models for discrimination between benign and malignant pelvic masses: a prospective cross validation. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2001;18:357-65.
44. Davies AP, Jacobs I, Wolas R, et al. The adnexal mass: benign or malignant? Evaluation of a risk of malignancy index. BJOG 1993;100:927-31.
45. Morgante G, la Marca A, Ditto A, De Leo V. Comparison of two malignancy risk indices based on serum CA125, ultrasound score and menopausal status in the diagnosis of ovarian masses. BJOG 1999;106:524-7.
46. Khan K, Chien P, Dwarakanath L. Logistic regression models in obstetrics and gynecology literature. Obstet Gynecol 1999;93:1014-20.