Cargando…
Evaluation of IOTA-ADNEX Model and Simple Rules for Identifying Adnexal Masses by Operators with Varying Levels of Expertise: A Single-Center Diagnostic Accuracy Study
Objectives The discrimination of ovarian lesions presents a significant problem in everyday clinical practice with ultrasonography appearing to be the most effective diagnostic technique. The aim of our study was to externally evaluate the performance of different diagnostic models when applied by e...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Georg Thieme Verlag KG
2023
|
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10446913/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37621952 http://dx.doi.org/10.1055/a-2044-2855 |
Sumario: | Objectives The discrimination of ovarian lesions presents a significant problem in everyday clinical practice with ultrasonography appearing to be the most effective diagnostic technique. The aim of our study was to externally evaluate the performance of different diagnostic models when applied by examiners with various levels of experience. Methods This was a diagnostic accuracy study including women who were admitted for adnexal masses, between July 2018 and April 2021, to a Greek tertiary oncology center. Preoperatively sonographic data were evaluated by an expert gynecologist, a 6 (th) and a 1 (st) year gynecology resident, who applied the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis (IOTA) Simple Rules (SR) and Assessment of Different NEoplasias in the adneXa (ADNEX) model to discriminate between benign and malignant ovarian tumors. The explant pathology report was used as the reference diagnosis. Kappa statistics were used for the investigation of the level of agreement between the examined systems and the raters. Results We included 66 women, 39 with benign and 27 with malignant ovarian tumors. ADNEX (with and without “CA-125”) had high sensitivity (96–100%) when applied by all raters but a rather low specificity (36%) when applied by the 1st year resident. SR could not be applied in 6% to 17% of the cases. It had slightly lower sensitivity, higher specificity, and higher overall accuracy, especially when applied by the 1st year resident (61% vs. 92%), compared to ADNEX. Conclusion Both ADNEX and SR can be utilized for screening in non-oncology centers since they offer high sensitivity even when used by less experienced examiners. In the hands of inexperienced examiners, SR appears to be the best model for assessing ovarian lesions. |
---|