Cargando…

Imaging in gynaecology: How good are we in identifying endometriomas?

Aim: To evaluate the performance of subjective evaluation of ultrasound findings (pattern recognition) to discriminate endometriomas from other types of adnexal masses and to compare the demographic and ultrasound characteristics of the true positive cases with those cases that were presumed to be a...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Van Holsbeke, C., Van Calster, B., Guerriero, S., Savelli, L., Leone, F., Fischerova, D, Czekierdowski, A., Fruscio, R., Veldman, J., Van de Putte, G., Testa, A.C., Bourne, T., Valentin, L., Timmerman, D.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Universa Press 2009
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4251283/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25478066
_version_ 1782347031839244288
author Van Holsbeke, C.
Van Calster, B.
Guerriero, S.
Savelli, L.
Leone, F.
Fischerova, D
Czekierdowski, A.
Fruscio, R.
Veldman, J.
Van de Putte, G.
Testa, A.C.
Bourne, T.
Valentin, L.
Timmerman, D.
author_facet Van Holsbeke, C.
Van Calster, B.
Guerriero, S.
Savelli, L.
Leone, F.
Fischerova, D
Czekierdowski, A.
Fruscio, R.
Veldman, J.
Van de Putte, G.
Testa, A.C.
Bourne, T.
Valentin, L.
Timmerman, D.
author_sort Van Holsbeke, C.
collection PubMed
description Aim: To evaluate the performance of subjective evaluation of ultrasound findings (pattern recognition) to discriminate endometriomas from other types of adnexal masses and to compare the demographic and ultrasound characteristics of the true positive cases with those cases that were presumed to be an endometrioma but proved to have a different histology (false positive cases) and the endometriomas missed by pattern recognition (false negative cases). Methods: All patients in the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis (IOTA ) studies were included for analysis. In the IOTA studies, patients with an adnexal mass that were preoperatively examined by expert sonologists following the same standardized ultrasound protocol were prospectively included in 21 international centres. Sensitivity and specificity to discriminate endometriomas from other types of adnexal masses using pattern recognition were calculated. Ultrasound and some demographic variables of the masses presumed to be an endometrioma were analysed (true positives and false positives) and compared with the variables of the endometriomas missed by pattern recognition (false negatives) as well as the true negatives. Results: IOTA phase 1, 1b and 2 included 3511 patients of which 2560 were benign (73%) and 951 malignant (27%). The dataset included 713 endometriomas. Sensitivity and specificity for pattern recognition were 81% (577/713) and 97% (2723/2798). The true positives were more often unilocular with ground glass echogenicity than the masses in any other category. Among the 75 false positive cases, 66 were benign but 9 were malignant (5 borderline tumours, 1 rare primary invasive tumour and 3 endometrioid adenocarcinomas). The presumed diagnosis suggested by the sonologist in case of a missed endometrioma was mostly functional cyst or cystadenoma. Conclusion: Expert sonologists can quite accurately discriminate endometriomas from other types of adnexal masses, but in this dataset 1% of the masses that were classified as endometrioma by pattern recognition proved to be malignancies.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4251283
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2009
publisher Universa Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-42512832014-12-04 Imaging in gynaecology: How good are we in identifying endometriomas? Van Holsbeke, C. Van Calster, B. Guerriero, S. Savelli, L. Leone, F. Fischerova, D Czekierdowski, A. Fruscio, R. Veldman, J. Van de Putte, G. Testa, A.C. Bourne, T. Valentin, L. Timmerman, D. Facts Views Vis Obgyn Original Paper Aim: To evaluate the performance of subjective evaluation of ultrasound findings (pattern recognition) to discriminate endometriomas from other types of adnexal masses and to compare the demographic and ultrasound characteristics of the true positive cases with those cases that were presumed to be an endometrioma but proved to have a different histology (false positive cases) and the endometriomas missed by pattern recognition (false negative cases). Methods: All patients in the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis (IOTA ) studies were included for analysis. In the IOTA studies, patients with an adnexal mass that were preoperatively examined by expert sonologists following the same standardized ultrasound protocol were prospectively included in 21 international centres. Sensitivity and specificity to discriminate endometriomas from other types of adnexal masses using pattern recognition were calculated. Ultrasound and some demographic variables of the masses presumed to be an endometrioma were analysed (true positives and false positives) and compared with the variables of the endometriomas missed by pattern recognition (false negatives) as well as the true negatives. Results: IOTA phase 1, 1b and 2 included 3511 patients of which 2560 were benign (73%) and 951 malignant (27%). The dataset included 713 endometriomas. Sensitivity and specificity for pattern recognition were 81% (577/713) and 97% (2723/2798). The true positives were more often unilocular with ground glass echogenicity than the masses in any other category. Among the 75 false positive cases, 66 were benign but 9 were malignant (5 borderline tumours, 1 rare primary invasive tumour and 3 endometrioid adenocarcinomas). The presumed diagnosis suggested by the sonologist in case of a missed endometrioma was mostly functional cyst or cystadenoma. Conclusion: Expert sonologists can quite accurately discriminate endometriomas from other types of adnexal masses, but in this dataset 1% of the masses that were classified as endometrioma by pattern recognition proved to be malignancies. Universa Press 2009 /pmc/articles/PMC4251283/ /pubmed/25478066 Text en Copyright: © 2009 Facts, Views & Vision http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Original Paper
Van Holsbeke, C.
Van Calster, B.
Guerriero, S.
Savelli, L.
Leone, F.
Fischerova, D
Czekierdowski, A.
Fruscio, R.
Veldman, J.
Van de Putte, G.
Testa, A.C.
Bourne, T.
Valentin, L.
Timmerman, D.
Imaging in gynaecology: How good are we in identifying endometriomas?
title Imaging in gynaecology: How good are we in identifying endometriomas?
title_full Imaging in gynaecology: How good are we in identifying endometriomas?
title_fullStr Imaging in gynaecology: How good are we in identifying endometriomas?
title_full_unstemmed Imaging in gynaecology: How good are we in identifying endometriomas?
title_short Imaging in gynaecology: How good are we in identifying endometriomas?
title_sort imaging in gynaecology: how good are we in identifying endometriomas?
topic Original Paper
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4251283/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25478066
work_keys_str_mv AT vanholsbekec imagingingynaecologyhowgoodareweinidentifyingendometriomas
AT vancalsterb imagingingynaecologyhowgoodareweinidentifyingendometriomas
AT guerrieros imagingingynaecologyhowgoodareweinidentifyingendometriomas
AT savellil imagingingynaecologyhowgoodareweinidentifyingendometriomas
AT leonef imagingingynaecologyhowgoodareweinidentifyingendometriomas
AT fischerovad imagingingynaecologyhowgoodareweinidentifyingendometriomas
AT czekierdowskia imagingingynaecologyhowgoodareweinidentifyingendometriomas
AT fruscior imagingingynaecologyhowgoodareweinidentifyingendometriomas
AT veldmanj imagingingynaecologyhowgoodareweinidentifyingendometriomas
AT vandeputteg imagingingynaecologyhowgoodareweinidentifyingendometriomas
AT testaac imagingingynaecologyhowgoodareweinidentifyingendometriomas
AT bournet imagingingynaecologyhowgoodareweinidentifyingendometriomas
AT valentinl imagingingynaecologyhowgoodareweinidentifyingendometriomas
AT timmermand imagingingynaecologyhowgoodareweinidentifyingendometriomas