• Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol · Oct 2011

    Adnexal masses difficult to classify as benign or malignant using subjective assessment of gray-scale and Doppler ultrasound findings: logistic regression models do not help.

    • L Valentin, L Ameye, L Savelli, R Fruscio, F P G Leone, A Czekierdowski, A A Lissoni, D Fischerova, S Guerriero, C Van Holsbeke, S Van Huffel, and D Timmerman.
    • Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Skåne University Hospital Malmö, Lund University, Malmö, Sweden. lil.valentin@med.lu.se
    • Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2011 Oct 1; 38 (4): 456-65.

    ObjectiveTo develop a logistic regression model that can discriminate between benign and malignant adnexal masses perceived to be difficult to classify by subjective evaluation of gray-scale and Doppler ultrasound findings (subjective assessment) and to compare its diagnostic performance with that of subjective assessment, serum CA 125 and the risk of malignancy index (RMI).MethodsWe used data from the 3511 patients with an adnexal mass included in the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis (IOTA) studies. All patients had been examined using transvaginal gray-scale and Doppler ultrasound following a standardized research protocol carried out by an experienced ultrasound examiner using a high-end ultrasound system. In addition to prospectively collecting information on > 40 clinical and ultrasound variables, the ultrasound examiner classified each mass as certainly or probably benign, unclassifiable, or certainly or probably malignant. A logistic regression model to discriminate between benignity and malignancy was developed for the unclassifiable masses (n = 244, i.e. 7% of all tumors) using a training set (160 tumors, 45 malignancies) and then tested on a test set (84 tumors, 28 malignancies). The gold standard was the histological diagnosis of the surgically removed adnexal mass. The area under the receiver-operating characteristics curve (AUC), sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (LR+) and negative likelihood ratio (LR-) were used to describe diagnostic performance and were compared between subjective assessment, CA 125, the RMI and the logistic regression model created.ResultsOne variable was retained in the logistic regression model: the largest diameter (in mm) of the largest solid component of the tumor (odds ratio (OR) = 1.04; 95% CI, 1.02-1.06). The model had an AUC of 0.68 (95% CI, 0.59-0.78) on the training set and an AUC of 0.65 (95% CI, 0.53-0.78) on the test set. On the test set, a cut-off of 25% probability of malignancy (corresponding to the largest diameter of the largest solid component of 23 mm) resulted in a sensitivity of 64% (18/28), a specificity of 55% (31/56), an LR+ of 1.44 and an LR- of 0.65. The corresponding values for subjective assessment were 68% (19/28), 59% (33/56), 1.65 and 0.55. On the test set of patients with available CA 125 results, the LR+ and LR- of the logistic regression model (cut-off = 25% probability of malignancy) were 1.29 and 0.73, of subjective assessment were 1.45 and 0.63, of CA 125 (cut-off = 35 U/mL) were 1.24 and 0.84 and of RMI (cut-off = 200) were 1.21 and 0.92.ConclusionsAbout 7% of adnexal masses that are considered appropriate for surgical removal cannot be classified as benign or malignant by experienced ultrasound examiners using subjective assessment. Logistic regression models to estimate the risk of malignancy, CA 125 measurements and the RMI are not helpful in these masses.Copyright © 2011 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

      Pubmed     Free full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…

Want more great medical articles?

Keep up to date with a free trial of metajournal, personalized for your practice.
1,694,794 articles already indexed!

We guarantee your privacy. Your email address will not be shared.