Combination of GI-RADS and 3D-CEUS for differential diagnosis of ovarian masses

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Wang,Xiali
Data de Publicação: 2019
Outros Autores: ShupingYang, Lv,Guorong, Liao,Jianmei, Wu,Shufen, Zhang,Weina
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: eng
Título da fonte: Revista da Associação Médica Brasileira (Online)
Texto Completo: http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0104-42302019000700959
Resumo: SUMMARY OBJECTIVE The purpose of this study is to evaluate the efficacy of the combination of gynecologic imaging reporting and data system (GI-RADS) ultrasonographic stratification and three-dimensional contrast-enhanced ultrasonography (3D-CEUS) in order to distinguish malignant from benign ovarian masses. METHODS In this study, 102 patients with ovarian masses were examined by both two-dimensional ultrasound(2D-US) and 3D-CEUS. Sonographic features of ovarian masses obtained from 3D-CEUS were analyzed and compared with 2D-US. All patients with ovarian masses were confirmed by operational pathology or long-term follow-up results. RESULTS (1)The Chi-square test and multiple Logistic regression analysis confirmed that there were only eight independent predictors of malignant masses, including thick septa (≥3mm), thick papillary projections(≥7mm), solid areas, presence of ascites, central vascularization, contrast enhancement, distribution of contrast agent, and vascular characteristics of the solid part and their odds ratios which were 5.52, 5.39, 4.94, 4.34, 5.92, 7.44, 6.09, and 7.67, respectively (P<0.05). (2)These eight signs were used to combine the GI-RADS with 3D-CEUS scoring system in which the corresponding value of the area under the curve (AUC) was 0.969, which was superior to using GI-RADS lonely (Z-value=1.64, P<0.025). Using 4 points as the cut-off, the scoring system showed the performance was clearly better than using GI-RADS alone (P<0.05). (3) The Kappa value was 0.872 for two different clinicians with equal experience. CONCLUSIONS The combination of GI-RADS and 3D-CEUS scoring system would be a more effective method to distinguish malignant from benign ovarian masses.
id AMB-1_ef491236ed2ec498267852697b150378
oai_identifier_str oai:scielo:S0104-42302019000700959
network_acronym_str AMB-1
network_name_str Revista da Associação Médica Brasileira (Online)
repository_id_str
spelling Combination of GI-RADS and 3D-CEUS for differential diagnosis of ovarian massesNeoplasias ovarianasDoenças ovarianasUltrasonographyImaging, three-dimensional/methodsSUMMARY OBJECTIVE The purpose of this study is to evaluate the efficacy of the combination of gynecologic imaging reporting and data system (GI-RADS) ultrasonographic stratification and three-dimensional contrast-enhanced ultrasonography (3D-CEUS) in order to distinguish malignant from benign ovarian masses. METHODS In this study, 102 patients with ovarian masses were examined by both two-dimensional ultrasound(2D-US) and 3D-CEUS. Sonographic features of ovarian masses obtained from 3D-CEUS were analyzed and compared with 2D-US. All patients with ovarian masses were confirmed by operational pathology or long-term follow-up results. RESULTS (1)The Chi-square test and multiple Logistic regression analysis confirmed that there were only eight independent predictors of malignant masses, including thick septa (≥3mm), thick papillary projections(≥7mm), solid areas, presence of ascites, central vascularization, contrast enhancement, distribution of contrast agent, and vascular characteristics of the solid part and their odds ratios which were 5.52, 5.39, 4.94, 4.34, 5.92, 7.44, 6.09, and 7.67, respectively (P<0.05). (2)These eight signs were used to combine the GI-RADS with 3D-CEUS scoring system in which the corresponding value of the area under the curve (AUC) was 0.969, which was superior to using GI-RADS lonely (Z-value=1.64, P<0.025). Using 4 points as the cut-off, the scoring system showed the performance was clearly better than using GI-RADS alone (P<0.05). (3) The Kappa value was 0.872 for two different clinicians with equal experience. CONCLUSIONS The combination of GI-RADS and 3D-CEUS scoring system would be a more effective method to distinguish malignant from benign ovarian masses.Associação Médica Brasileira2019-07-01info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersiontext/htmlhttp://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0104-42302019000700959Revista da Associação Médica Brasileira v.65 n.7 2019reponame:Revista da Associação Médica Brasileira (Online)instname:Associação Médica Brasileira (AMB)instacron:AMB10.1590/1806-9282.65.7.959info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessWang,XialiShupingYang,Lv,GuorongLiao,JianmeiWu,ShufenZhang,Weinaeng2019-08-02T00:00:00Zoai:scielo:S0104-42302019000700959Revistahttps://ramb.amb.org.br/ultimas-edicoes/#https://old.scielo.br/oai/scielo-oai.php||ramb@amb.org.br1806-92820104-4230opendoar:2019-08-02T00:00Revista da Associação Médica Brasileira (Online) - Associação Médica Brasileira (AMB)false
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Combination of GI-RADS and 3D-CEUS for differential diagnosis of ovarian masses
title Combination of GI-RADS and 3D-CEUS for differential diagnosis of ovarian masses
spellingShingle Combination of GI-RADS and 3D-CEUS for differential diagnosis of ovarian masses
Wang,Xiali
Neoplasias ovarianas
Doenças ovarianas
Ultrasonography
Imaging, three-dimensional/methods
title_short Combination of GI-RADS and 3D-CEUS for differential diagnosis of ovarian masses
title_full Combination of GI-RADS and 3D-CEUS for differential diagnosis of ovarian masses
title_fullStr Combination of GI-RADS and 3D-CEUS for differential diagnosis of ovarian masses
title_full_unstemmed Combination of GI-RADS and 3D-CEUS for differential diagnosis of ovarian masses
title_sort Combination of GI-RADS and 3D-CEUS for differential diagnosis of ovarian masses
author Wang,Xiali
author_facet Wang,Xiali
ShupingYang,
Lv,Guorong
Liao,Jianmei
Wu,Shufen
Zhang,Weina
author_role author
author2 ShupingYang,
Lv,Guorong
Liao,Jianmei
Wu,Shufen
Zhang,Weina
author2_role author
author
author
author
author
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Wang,Xiali
ShupingYang,
Lv,Guorong
Liao,Jianmei
Wu,Shufen
Zhang,Weina
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv Neoplasias ovarianas
Doenças ovarianas
Ultrasonography
Imaging, three-dimensional/methods
topic Neoplasias ovarianas
Doenças ovarianas
Ultrasonography
Imaging, three-dimensional/methods
description SUMMARY OBJECTIVE The purpose of this study is to evaluate the efficacy of the combination of gynecologic imaging reporting and data system (GI-RADS) ultrasonographic stratification and three-dimensional contrast-enhanced ultrasonography (3D-CEUS) in order to distinguish malignant from benign ovarian masses. METHODS In this study, 102 patients with ovarian masses were examined by both two-dimensional ultrasound(2D-US) and 3D-CEUS. Sonographic features of ovarian masses obtained from 3D-CEUS were analyzed and compared with 2D-US. All patients with ovarian masses were confirmed by operational pathology or long-term follow-up results. RESULTS (1)The Chi-square test and multiple Logistic regression analysis confirmed that there were only eight independent predictors of malignant masses, including thick septa (≥3mm), thick papillary projections(≥7mm), solid areas, presence of ascites, central vascularization, contrast enhancement, distribution of contrast agent, and vascular characteristics of the solid part and their odds ratios which were 5.52, 5.39, 4.94, 4.34, 5.92, 7.44, 6.09, and 7.67, respectively (P<0.05). (2)These eight signs were used to combine the GI-RADS with 3D-CEUS scoring system in which the corresponding value of the area under the curve (AUC) was 0.969, which was superior to using GI-RADS lonely (Z-value=1.64, P<0.025). Using 4 points as the cut-off, the scoring system showed the performance was clearly better than using GI-RADS alone (P<0.05). (3) The Kappa value was 0.872 for two different clinicians with equal experience. CONCLUSIONS The combination of GI-RADS and 3D-CEUS scoring system would be a more effective method to distinguish malignant from benign ovarian masses.
publishDate 2019
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2019-07-01
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0104-42302019000700959
url http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0104-42302019000700959
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv 10.1590/1806-9282.65.7.959
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv text/html
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Associação Médica Brasileira
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Associação Médica Brasileira
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv Revista da Associação Médica Brasileira v.65 n.7 2019
reponame:Revista da Associação Médica Brasileira (Online)
instname:Associação Médica Brasileira (AMB)
instacron:AMB
instname_str Associação Médica Brasileira (AMB)
instacron_str AMB
institution AMB
reponame_str Revista da Associação Médica Brasileira (Online)
collection Revista da Associação Médica Brasileira (Online)
repository.name.fl_str_mv Revista da Associação Médica Brasileira (Online) - Associação Médica Brasileira (AMB)
repository.mail.fl_str_mv ||ramb@amb.org.br
_version_ 1754212834267365376