Performance of ultrasound models in diagnosis of Ovarian Cancer: Experience of a Portuguese tertiary center

• Autor(a) principal: Rodrigues,Ângela
• Data de Publicação: 2020
• Outros Autores: Negrão,Liana, Águas,Fernanda, Castro,Maria Geraldina
• Tipo de documento: Artigo
• Idioma: eng
• Título da fonte: Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
• Texto Completo: http://scielo.pt/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1646-58302020000300006
• topic: Adnexal masses; Ovarian cancer; IOTA simple rules; CA 125 level; Ultrasound diagnostic accuracy

Overview and Aims: The purpose of this study was to find the best ultrasound model for preoperative discrimination between benign and malignant adnexal masses in a group of Portuguese women. Methods: Single-centre retrospective study of 123 adnexal masses. The ultrasound images were described by an experienced ultrasonographer and classified as benign or malignant, according to IOTA simple rules (SR), RMI scoring and logistic regression model L2 (LR2). Two study groups were considered according to histologic diagnosis (benign and malignant). Borderline tumours were counted as malignant. The sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values (PPV and NPV) were calculated for IOTA SR; LR2 model; RMI score and use of serum CA 125 as a secondstage test in cases of IOTA SR complemented by subjective assessment. Results: Among the 123 tumours, 81.3% were benign and 18.7% were malignant on histolopathology. When inconclusive tumors were considered malignant, the IOTA SR had a sensitivity of 95.6%, specificity of 69.9%, PPV 46.8% and NPV of 98.3%. If inconclusive tumors were classified by subjective sonographic assessment, IOTA SR had a sensitivity of 91.3% and specificity of 78.3%. The LR2 model had a sensitivity of 91.3%, specificity 77.1%, PPV 63.6% and NPV 93.06%. Conclusion: IOTA SR and IOTA LR2 models achieved the best diagnostic accuracy for differentiating between benign or malignant adnexal masses. In case of inconclusive results, subjective assessment of ultrasound findings by expert examiners should be incorporated.