Simple Rules, Not So Simple: The Use of International Ovarian Tumor Analysis (IOTA) Terminology and Simple Rules in Inexperienced Hands in a Prospective Multicenter Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVES: To analyze how well untrained examiners - without experience in the use of International Ovarian Tumor Analysis (IOTA) terminology or simple ultrasound-based rules (simple rules) - are able to apply IOTA terminology and simple rules and to assess the level of agreement between non-experts and an expert. METHODS: This prospective multicenter cohort study enrolled women with ovarian masses. Ultrasound was performed by non-expert examiners and an expert. Ultrasound features were recorded using IOTA nomenclature, and used for classifying the mass by simple rules. Interobserver agreement was evaluated with Fleiss' kappa and percentage agreement between observers. RESULTS: 50 consecutive women were included. We observed 46 discrepancies in the description of ovarian masses when non-experts utilized IOTA terminology. Tumor type was misclassified often (n = 22), resulting in poor interobserver agreement between the non-experts and the expert (kappa = 0.39, 95 %-CI 0.244 - 0.529, percentage of agreement = 52.0 %). Misinterpretation of simple rules by non-experts was observed 57 times, resulting in an erroneous diagnosis in 15 patients (30 %). The agreement for classifying the mass as benign, malignant or inconclusive by simple rules was only moderate between the non-experts and the expert (kappa = 0.50, 95 %-CI 0.300 - 0.704, percentage of agreement = 70.0 %). The level of agreement for all 10 simple rules features varied greatly (kappa index range: -0.08 - 0.74, percentage of agreement 66 - 94 %). CONCLUSION: Although simple rules are useful to distinguish benign from malignant adnexal masses, they are not that simple for untrained examiners. Training with both IOTA terminology and simple rules is necessary before simple rules can be introduced into guidelines and daily clinical practice.

Investigating the performance and cost-effectiveness of the simple ultrasound-based rules compared to the risk of malignancy index in the diagnosis of ovarian cancer (SUBSONiC-study): protocol of a prospective multicenter cohort study in the Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: Estimating the risk of malignancy is essential in the management of adnexal masses. An accurate differential diagnosis between benign and malignant masses will reduce morbidity and costs due to unnecessary operations, and will improve referral to a gynecologic oncologist for specialized cancer care, which improves outcome and overall survival. The Risk of Malignancy Index is currently the most commonly used method in clinical practice, but has a relatively low diagnostic accuracy (sensitivity 75-80% and specificity 85-90%). Recent reports show that other methods, such as simple ultrasound-based rules, subjective assessment and (Diffusion Weighted) Magnetic Resonance Imaging might be superior to the RMI in the pre-operative differentiation of adnexal masses. METHODS/DESIGN: A prospective multicenter cohort study will be performed in the south of The Netherlands. A total of 270 women diagnosed with at least one pelvic mass that is suspected to be of ovarian origin who will undergo surgery, will be enrolled. We will apply the Risk of Malignancy Index with a cut-off value of 200 and a two-step triage test consisting of simple ultrasound-based rules supplemented -if necessary- with either subjective assessment by an expert sonographer or Magnetic Resonance Imaging with diffusion weighted sequences, to characterize the adnexal masses. The histological diagnosis will be the reference standard. Diagnostic performances will be expressed as sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values and likelihood ratios. DISCUSSION: We hypothesize that this two-step triage test, including the simple ultrasound-based rules, will have better diagnostic accuracy than the Risk of Malignancy Index and therefore will improve the management of women with adnexal masses. Furthermore, we expect this two-step test to be more cost-effective. If the hypothesis is confirmed, the results of this study could have major effects on current guidelines and implementation of the triage test in daily clinical practice could be a possibility. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: registration number NCT02218502.