Ultrasound methods to distinguish between malignant and benign adnexal masses in the hands of examiners with different levels of experience

Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology

Volumn 34, Issue 4, 2009, Pages 454-461

  Van Holsbeke, C ^a,b   Daemen, A ^c   Yazbek, J ^d   Holland, T K ^d   Bourne, T ^a,e   Mesens, T ^b   Lannoo, L ^a   De Moor, B ^c   De Jonge, E ^b   Testa, A C ^f   Valentin, L ^g   Jurkovic, D ^d   Timmerman, D ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS LEUVEN   (Belgium)

^b ZOL Genk ^*  (Belgium)

^c UNIVERSITY OF LEUVEN   (Belgium)

^d KING S COLLEGE HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

^e IMPERIAL COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^f CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY   (Italy)

^g LUND UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Sweden)

Author keywords

Ovarian neoplasms; Pattern recognition; Risk of malignancy; Statistical models; Subjective impression; Ultrasound

Indexed keywords

ADNEXAL MASS; ARTICLE; CANCER RISK; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; FEMALE GENITAL TRACT TUMOR; HISTOPATHOLOGY; MEDICAL EDUCATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SCORING SYSTEM; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; THEORETICAL MODEL; TUMOR CLASSIFICATION; ULTRASOUND;

ADNEXAL DISEASES; CLINICAL COMPETENCE; FEMALE; GYNECOLOGY; HUMANS; MALE; OBSTETRICS; OVARIAN NEOPLASMS; PATTERN RECOGNITION, AUTOMATED; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; ROC CURVE; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; ULTRASONOGRAPHY, DOPPLER, COLOR;

EID: 70350234475     PISSN: 09607692     EISSN: 14690705     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/uog.6443     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. Valentin L. Use of morphology to characterize and manage common adnexal masses. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 2004; 18: 71-89. (Pubitemid 38324637)
2. 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: 273-283.
3. 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: 357-365. (Pubitemid 32947204)
4. 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.
5. Van Calster B, Timmerman D, Bourne T, Testa A, Van Holsbeke C, Domali E, Jurkovic D, Neven P, Van Huffel S, Valentin L. Discrimination between benign and malignant adnexal masses by specialist ultrasound examination versus serum CA-125. J Natl Cancer Inst 2007; 99: 1706-1714. (Pubitemid 351767215)
6. Timmerman D, Schwarzler P, Collins WP, Claerhout F, Coenen M, Amant F, Vergote I, Bourne TH. Subjective assessment of adnexal masses with the use of ultrasonography: an analysis of interobserver variability and experience. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1999; 13: 11-16. (Pubitemid 29097172)
7. Yazbek J, Raju SK, Ben-Nagi J, Holland TK, Hillaby K, Jurkovic D. Effect of quality of gynaecological ultrasonography on management of patients with suspected ovarian cancer: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol 2008; 9: 124-131.
8. 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: 8794-8801. (Pubitemid 46211525)
9. 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: 41-47. (Pubitemid 27375937)
10. Lerner JP, Timor-Tritsch IE, Federman A, Abramovich G. Transvaginal ultrasonographic characterization of ovarian masses with an improved, weighted scoring system. Am JObstet Gynecol 1994; 170: 81-85. (Pubitemid 24084035)
11. Sassone AM, Timor-Tritsch I, Artner A, Westhoff C, Warren W. Transvaginal sonographic characterization of ovarian disease: evaluation of a new scoring system to predict ovarian malignancy. Obstet Gynecol 1991; 78: 70-76.
12. Ameye L, Valentin L, Testa AC, Van Holsbeke C, Domali E, Van Huffel S, Vergote I, Bourne T, Timmerman D. 'Scoring system to differentiate benign from malignant masses in specific subgroups of adnexal tumors', Internal Report 08-114, ESATSISTA, K.U.Leuven (Leuven, Belgium), 2008.
13. Ameye L, Valentin L, Testa AC, Van Holsbeke C, Domali E, Van Huffel S, Vergote I, Bourne T, Timmerman D. A scoring system to differentiate malignant from benign masses in specific ultrasound-based subgroups of adnexal tumors. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2009; 33: 92-101.
14. DePriest P, Shenson D, Fried A, Hunter J, Andrews S, Gallion H, Pavlik E, Kryscio R, van Nagell J. A morphology index based on sonographic findings in ovarian cancer. GynecolOncol 1993; 51: 7-11. (Pubitemid 23339256)
15. Van HolsbekeC, Van Calster B, TestaAC, Domali E, LuC, Van Huffel S, Valentin L, Timmerman D. Prospective internal validation of mathematical models to predict malignancy in adnexal masses: results from the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis (IOTA) study. Clin Cancer Res 2009; 15: 684-691.
16. Timmerman D, Valentin L, Bourne TH, Collins WP, Verrelst H, Vergote I; International Ovarian Tumor Analysis (IOTA) Group. Terms, definitions andmeasurements to describe the ultrasonographic features of adnexal tumors: a consensus opinion from the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis (IOTA) Group. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2000; 16: 500-505. (Pubitemid 32158133)
17. Fruscella E, Testa AC, Ferrandina G, De Smet F, Van Holsbeke C, Scambia G, Zannoni GF, Ludovisi M, Achten R, Amant F, Vergote I, Timmerman D. Ultrasound features of different histopathological subtypes of borderline ovarian tumors. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2005; 26: 644-650. (Pubitemid 41695416)
18. Valentin L, Ameye L, Testa A, Lécuru F, Bernard JP, Paladini D, Van Huffel S, Timmerman D. Ultrasound characteristics of different types of adnexalmalignancies. GynecolOncol 2006; 102: 41-48. (Pubitemid 43870231)
19. Valentin L, Ameye L, Jurkovic D, Metzger U, Lécuru F, Van Huffel S, Timmerman D. Which extrauterine pelvic masses are difficult to correctly classify as benign or malignant on the basis of ultrasound findings and is there a way of making a correct diagnosis? Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2006; 27: 438-444.
20. Senoy SF, Scully RE, Sobin LH. The World Health Organization international histological classification of ovarian tumours. World Health Organization: Geneva, 1973.
21. DeLong E, DeLong D, Clarke-Pearson D. Comparing the areas under two or more correlated receiver operating characteristic curves: a nonparametric approach. Biometrics 1988; 44: 837-845. (Pubitemid 18243017)
22. Arger P, Schultz S, Sehgal C, Cary T, Aronchick J. Teaching medical students diagnostic sonography. J Ultrasound Med 2005; 24: 1365-1369. (Pubitemid 41395924)
23. Brown A, Wakefield R, Karim Z, Roberts T, O'Connor P, Emery P. Evidence of effective and efficient teaching and learning strategies in the education of rheumatologist ultrasonographers: evaluation from the 3rd BSR musculoskeletal ultrasonography course. Rheumatology 2005; 44: 1068-1069. (Pubitemid 41487186)
24. Van Holsbeke C, Yazbek J, Holland TK, Daemen A, De Moor B, Testa AC, Valentin L, Jurkovic D, Timmerman D. Real-time ultrasound versus evaluation of static images in the preoperative evaluation of adnexal masses. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2008; 32: 828-831.