open access

Vol 88, No 12 (2017)
Research paper
Published online: 2017-12-29
Get Citation

The use of sonographic subjective tumor assessment, IOTA logistic regression model 1, IOTA Simple Rules and GI-RADS system in the preoperative prediction of malignancy in women with adnexal masses

Jarosław Koneczny1, Artur Czekierdowski2, Marek Florczak1, Paweł Poziemski1, Norbert Stachowicz3, Dariusz Borowski4
DOI: 10.5603/GP.a2017.0116
·
Pubmed: 29303221
·
Ginekol Pol 2017;88(12):647-653.
Affiliations
  1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, County Hospital, Minsk Mazowiecki, Poland
  2. Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Gynecology of the Medical University of Lublin, Poland
  3. Department of Epidemiology and Clinical Research Methodology, Medical University of Lublin, Poland
  4. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Collegium Medicum, Nicolaus Copernicus University in Toruń, ul.Jagiellońska 13-15, 85-067 Bydgoszcz

open access

Vol 88, No 12 (2017)
ORIGINAL PAPERS Gynecology
Published online: 2017-12-29

Abstract

Background: Sonography based methods with various tumor markers are currently used to discriminate the type of adnexal masses. Objective: To compare the predictive value of selected sonography-based models along with subjective assessment in ovarian cancer prediction. Material and methods: We analyzed data of 271 women operated because of adnexal masses. All masses were verified by histological examination. Preoperative sonography was performed in all patients and various predictive models includ¬ing IOTA group logistic regression model LR1 (LR1), IOTA simple ultrasound-based rules by IOTA (SR), GI-RADS and risk of malignancy index (RMI3) were used. ROC curves were constructed and respective AUC’s with 95% CI’s were compared. Results: Of 271 masses 78 proved to be malignant including 6 borderline tumors. LR1 had sensitivity of 91.0%, specificity of 91.2%, AUC = 0.95 (95% CI: 0.92–0.98). Sensitivity for GI-RADS for 271 patients was 88.5% with specificity of 85% and AUC = 0.91 (95% CI: 0.88–0.95). Subjective assessment yielded sensitivity and specificity of 85.9% and 96.9%, respectively with AUC = 0.97 (95% CI: 0.94–0.99). SR were applicable in 236 masses and had sensitivity of 90.6% with specificity of 95.3% and AUC = 0.93 (95% CI 0.89–0.97). RMI3 was calculated only in 104 women who had CA125 available and had sensitivity of 55.3%, specificity of 94% and AUC = 0.85 (95% CI: 0.77–0.93). Conclusions: Although subjective assessment by the ultrasound expert remains the best current method of adnexal tumors preoperative discrimination, the simplicity and high predictive value favor the IOTA SR method, and when not applicable, the IOTA LR1 or GI-RADS models to be primarily and effectively used.

Abstract

Background: Sonography based methods with various tumor markers are currently used to discriminate the type of adnexal masses. Objective: To compare the predictive value of selected sonography-based models along with subjective assessment in ovarian cancer prediction. Material and methods: We analyzed data of 271 women operated because of adnexal masses. All masses were verified by histological examination. Preoperative sonography was performed in all patients and various predictive models includ¬ing IOTA group logistic regression model LR1 (LR1), IOTA simple ultrasound-based rules by IOTA (SR), GI-RADS and risk of malignancy index (RMI3) were used. ROC curves were constructed and respective AUC’s with 95% CI’s were compared. Results: Of 271 masses 78 proved to be malignant including 6 borderline tumors. LR1 had sensitivity of 91.0%, specificity of 91.2%, AUC = 0.95 (95% CI: 0.92–0.98). Sensitivity for GI-RADS for 271 patients was 88.5% with specificity of 85% and AUC = 0.91 (95% CI: 0.88–0.95). Subjective assessment yielded sensitivity and specificity of 85.9% and 96.9%, respectively with AUC = 0.97 (95% CI: 0.94–0.99). SR were applicable in 236 masses and had sensitivity of 90.6% with specificity of 95.3% and AUC = 0.93 (95% CI 0.89–0.97). RMI3 was calculated only in 104 women who had CA125 available and had sensitivity of 55.3%, specificity of 94% and AUC = 0.85 (95% CI: 0.77–0.93). Conclusions: Although subjective assessment by the ultrasound expert remains the best current method of adnexal tumors preoperative discrimination, the simplicity and high predictive value favor the IOTA SR method, and when not applicable, the IOTA LR1 or GI-RADS models to be primarily and effectively used.
Get Citation

Keywords

ovarian cancer prediction, sonography, IOTA group, Simple Rules, LR1 model, GI-RADS model, RMI model

About this article
Title

The use of sonographic subjective tumor assessment, IOTA logistic regression model 1, IOTA Simple Rules and GI-RADS system in the preoperative prediction of malignancy in women with adnexal masses

Journal

Ginekologia Polska

Issue

Vol 88, No 12 (2017)

Article type

Research paper

Pages

647-653

Published online

2017-12-29

DOI

10.5603/GP.a2017.0116

Pubmed

29303221

Bibliographic record

Ginekol Pol 2017;88(12):647-653.

Keywords

ovarian cancer prediction
sonography
IOTA group
Simple Rules
LR1 model
GI-RADS model
RMI model

Authors

Jarosław Koneczny
Artur Czekierdowski
Marek Florczak
Paweł Poziemski
Norbert Stachowicz
Dariusz Borowski

References (30)
  1. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists’ Committee on Practice Bulletins—Gynecology. Practice Bulletin No. 174: Evaluation and Management of Adnexal Masses. Obstet Gynecol. 2016; 128(5): e210–e226.
  2. Hall JA. Adnexal masses: when to observe, when to intervene, and when to refer. Obstet Gynecol. 2010; 116(2 Pt 1): 440; author reply 440.
  3. Liu JH, Zanotti KM. Management of the adnexal mass. Obstet Gynecol. 2011; 117(6): 1413–1428.
  4. Carney ME, Lancaster JM, Ford C, et al. A population-based study of patterns of care for ovarian cancer: who is seen by a gynecologic oncologist and who is not? Gynecol Oncol. 2002; 84(1): 36–42.
  5. Giede KC, Kieser K, Dodge J, et al. Who should operate on patients with ovarian cancer? An evidence-based review. Gynecol Oncol. 2005; 99(2): 447–461.
  6. Mercado C, Zingmond D, Karlan B, et al. Quality of care in advanced ovarian cancer: The importance of provider specialty. Gynecologic Oncology. 2010; 117(1): 18–22.
  7. Valentin L, Hagen B, Tingulstad S, et al. 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(4): 357–365.
  8. Moszynski R, Szpurek D, Szubert S, et al. Analysis of false negative results of subjective ultrasonography assessment of adnexal masses. Ginekol Pol. 2013; 84(2): 102–107.
  9. Stukan M, Dudziak M, Ratajczak K, et al. Usefulness of diagnostic indices comprising clinical, sonographic, and biomarker data for discriminating benign from malignant ovarian masses. J Ultrasound Med. 2015; 34(2): 207–217.
  10. Kaijser J, Gorp TV, Smet ME, et al. Are serum HE4 or ROMA scores useful to experienced examiners for improving characterization of adnexal masses after transvaginal ultrasonography? Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology. 2013; 43(1): 89–97.
  11. Timmerman D, Valentin L, Bourne TH, et al. International Ovarian Tumor Analysis (IOTA) Group. Terms, definitions and measurements to describe the sonographic features of adnexal tumors: a consensus opinion from the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis (IOTA) Group. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2000; 16(5): 500–505.
  12. Timmerman D, Testa AC, Bourne T, et al. 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(34): 8794–8801.
  13. Timmerman D, Testa AC, Bourne T, et al. Simple ultrasound-based rules for the diagnosis of ovarian cancer. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2008; 31(6): 681–690.
  14. Polish Gynecological Society recommendations. Ginekol.Pol.Supl. 2015.
  15. Jacobs I, Oram D, Fairbanks J, et al. A risk of malignancy index incorporating CA 125, ultrasound and menopausal status for the accurate preoperative diagnosis of ovarian cancer. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1990; 97(10): 922–929.
  16. Tingulstad S, Hagen B, Skjeldestad FE, et al. Evaluation of a risk of malignancy index based on serum CA125, ultrasound findings and menopausal status in the pre-operative diagnosis of pelvic masses. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1996; 103(8): 826–831.
  17. Tingulstad S, Hagen B, Skjeldestad FE, et al. The risk-of-malignancy index to evaluate potential ovarian cancers in local hospitals. Obstet Gynecol. 1999; 93(3): 448–452.
  18. Amor F, Alcázar JL, Vaccaro H, et al. GI-RADS reporting system for ultrasound evaluation of adnexal masses in clinical practice: a prospective multicenter study. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2011; 38(4): 450–455.
  19. Amor F, Alcázar JL, Vaccaro H, et al. GI-RADS reporting system for ultrasound evaluation of adnexal masses in clinical practice: a prospective multicenter study. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2011; 38(4): 450–455.
  20. Education and Practical Standards Committee, European Federation of Societies for Ultrasound in Medicine and Biology. Minimum training recommendations for the practice of medical ultrasound. Ultraschall Med. 2006; 27(1): 79–105.
  21. Miller RW, Ueland FR. Risk of malignancy in sonographically confirmed ovarian tumors. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2012; 55(1): 52–64.
  22. Sayasneh A, Wynants L, Preisler J, et al. Multicentre external validation of IOTA prediction models and RMI by operators with varied training. Br J Cancer. 2013; 108(12): 2448–2454.
  23. Knafel A, Banas T, Nocun A, et al. The Prospective External Validation of International Ovarian Tumor Analysis (IOTA) Simple Rules in the Hands of Level I and II Examiners. Ultraschall Med. 2016; 37(5): 516–523.
  24. Abdalla N, Winiarek J, Bachanek M, et al. Clinical, ultrasound parameters and tumor marker-based mathematical models and scoring systems in pre-surgical diagnosis of adnexal tumors. Ginekol Pol. 2016; 87(12): 824–829.
  25. Valentin L, Ameye L, Savelli L, et al. 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. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology. 2011; 38(4): 456–465.
  26. Kaijser J, Sayasneh A, Van Hoorde K, et al. Presurgical diagnosis of adnexal tumours using mathematical models and scoring systems: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod Update. 2014; 20(3): 449–462.
  27. Meys EMJ, Kaijser J, Kruitwagen RF, et al. Subjective assessment versus ultrasound models to diagnose ovarian cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Cancer. 2016; 58: 17–29.
  28. Nunes N, Ambler G, Foo X, et al. A prospective evaluation of the IOTA Logistic Regression Models (LR1 and LR2) in comparison to Subjective Pattern Recognition for the diagnosis of ovarian cancer in the outpatient setting. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2017 [Epub ahead of print].
  29. Calster BV, Hoorde KV, Valentin L, et al. Evaluating the risk of ovarian cancer before surgery using the ADNEX model to differentiate between benign, borderline, early and advanced stage invasive, and secondary metastatic tumours: prospective multicentre diagnostic study. BMJ. 2014; 349(oct07 3): g5920–g5920.
  30. Abramowicz JS, Timmerman D. Ovarian mass-differentiating benign from malignant: the value of the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis ultrasound rules. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2017; 217(6): 652–660.

Regulations

Important: This website uses cookies. More >>

The cookies allow us to identify your computer and find out details about your last visit. They remembering whether you've visited the site before, so that you remain logged in - or to help us work out how many new website visitors we get each month. Most internet browsers accept cookies automatically, but you can change the settings of your browser to erase cookies or prevent automatic acceptance if you prefer.

By "Via Medica sp. z o.o." sp.k., ul. Świętokrzyska 73, 80–180 Gdańsk
tel.:+48 58 320 94 94, faks:+48 58 320 94 60, e-mail:  viamedica@viamedica.pl