ABSTRACT
Introduction@#Ovarian cancer is considered the most lethal gynecologic malignancy because it is difficult to diagnose in its early stages. Ovarian malignancy prediction models may be useful in discriminating between benign and malignant masses, allowing for accurate and timely referral as well as proper therapeutic care@*Objective@#To evaluate the diagnostic performance of the four ovarian prediction models: Risk of Malignancy Index‑4 (RMI‑4), Risk of Ovarian Malignancy Algorithm (ROMA), Copenhagen Index (CPH‑I), and International Ovarian Tumor Analysis (IOTA)‑Assessment of Different NEoplasias in the AdneXa (ADNEX) in identifying malignant and benign ovarian masses@*Materials and Methods@#This was a retrospective, cross‑sectional, analytical diagnostic study in a tertiary hospital between January 2017 and December 2020. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves, area under the curves (AUCs), sensitivities, specificities, positive and negative predictive values, and positive and negative likelihood ratios were used to assess the diagnostic performance of the prediction models.@*Results@#We analyzed a total of 248 patients. One hundred and sixty‑one (65%) had benign tumors, 28 (11%) had borderline, and 59 (24%) had malignant tumors. The AUCs of all models were all above 90%, but when compared to the other models, CPH‑I had the best estimate. RMI‑4 had the highest sensitivity (98.3%) in diagnosing malignancy. For appropriately diagnosing benign disease, the IOTA‑ADNEX model exhibited the highest specificity (92.1%). Overall, RMI‑4 had the lowest diagnostic accuracy (74.6%), whereas IOTA‑ADNEX had the greatest (93.2%).@*Conclusion@#The four malignancy prediction models in this study were all useful tools in discriminating between benign and malignant ovarian tumors. IOTA‑ADNEX, CPH‑I, and ROMA all demonstrated overlapping diagnostic performances indicating that they are equal in that regard. In terms of sensitivity in predicting malignancy, RMI‑4 was the most sensitive. CPH‑I is the predictor with the best overall estimate. Lastly, IOTA‑ADNEX was the most specific, and displayed highest diagnostic accuracy among the four
Subject(s)
Humans , Female , Ovarian Neoplasms , RomeABSTRACT
Objective:To explore the value of different levels of sonographers and International Ovarian Tumor Analysis (IOTA) simple rules in judging benign and malignant ovarian tumors.Methods:The ultrasound images of 182 patients treated in Beijing Tiantan Hospital, Capital Medical University from January 2017 to November 2020 with ovarian tumors were retrospectively analyzed. The ovarian tumors were diagnosed by two senior sonographers and two junior sonographers without knowing the pathological diagnosis. Another junior sonographer trained in IOTA terminology and simple rules applied IOTA simple rules to diagnose 182 ovarian tumors. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value of the diagnosis of ovarian tumors by senior sonographers, junior sonographers and IOTA simple rules were calculated using the postoperative pathological diagnosis as the gold standard. The Kappa value was calculated for the consistency between different levels of sonographers and the IOTA simple rules and pathological diagnosis.Results:Of the 182 cases, 61 cases were pathologically benign and 121 cases were pathologically malignant. The diagnostic sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of senior sonographers were 93.4%, 99.2%, 97.2%, respectively, Kappa value was 0.938. The diagnostic sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of junior sonographers were 80.3%, 90.0%, 86.8%, respectively, Kappa value was 0.704. The diagnostic sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of IOTA simple rules(When an uncertain tumor was classified as malignant) were 95.0%, 73.5%, 80.7%, respectively, Kappa value was 0.614. The diagnostic sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of IOTA simple rules(when an uncertain tumor was excluded) were 94.2%, 90.9%, 92.0%, respectively, Kappa value was 0.834.Conclusions:IOTA simple rules is a very useful diagnostic tool for junior sonographers to judge benign and malignant ovarian tumors. When IOTA simple principle is judged as an uncertain case, it is recommended to refer to experienced senior sonographers for further diagnosis.
ABSTRACT
Background: IOTA (International ovarian tumor analysis) study is considered one of the largest studies on ultrasound diagnosis of ovarian pathology conducted in literature till date. It was started in 1999 and included nine European countries. It is a standardized technique for preoperative classification of ovarian pathology defined by IOTA group.Methods: A retrospective study was analyzed from a period of January 2016 to December 2017 (2-year period). The records of all the patients operated for benign and malignant ovarian pathology in the gynae department of hospital were retrieved from medical record sections. USG findings were redefined as per IOTA simple rules by sonologist and its histopathological correlation was done using kappa statistical method.Results: In the present study, out of 61 patients IOTA was applicable to 57 patients. The sensitivity where IOTA simple rules were applicable was 92.8% and the specificity was 93%. The accuracy turned out to be 92.9%. If inconclusive results were taken as malignant then sensitivity increased to 94% and specificity decreased to 87%. Good level of agreement was found between sonological and histopathological findings with Kappa statistics application (K = 0.59).Conclusions: The IOTA simple rules can be considered as an important diagnostic modality in differentiation of benign and malignant ovarian tumors, it has an added advantage of abolishing the subjectivity of routine ultrasound. However inconclusive results demand further expertise in the field and need to be taken care of before interpretation of ovarian pathologies.