• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

IOTA 逻辑回归模型 LR2 对卵巢癌诊断的前瞻性评估。

Prospective evaluation of the IOTA logistic regression model LR2 for the diagnosis of ovarian cancer.

机构信息

Gynaecology Diagnostic Outpatient Treatment Unit, University College Hospital, London, UK.

出版信息

Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2012 Sep;40(3):355-9. doi: 10.1002/uog.11088.

DOI:10.1002/uog.11088
PMID:22223587
Abstract

OBJECTIVES

To assess the accuracy of the IOTA logistic regression model LR2 for the diagnosis of ovarian cancer.

METHODS

This was a prospective single-center study of women with an ultrasound diagnosis of an adnexal tumor. They were all examined by a single Level-II ultrasound operator, who had received training in the systematic examination of ovarian tumors in accordance with the IOTA guidelines. In all women the likelihood of the adnexal lesion being malignant was calculated using the IOTA LR2 model. All women underwent surgery within 120 days of ultrasound examination and the ultrasound findings were compared with operative findings and the final histological diagnosis.

RESULTS

One hundred and twenty-four women were included in the final analysis. The mean age was 53.2 (range, 20-91) years and 61/124 (49.2%) women were postmenopausal. 66/124 (53.2%) women had malignant lesions on postoperative histological examination. The IOTA LR2 model had a sensitivity of 97.0% (95% CI, 89.5-99.6%) and a specificity of 69.0% (95% CI, 55.5-80.5%). The area under the receiver-operating characteristics curve was 0.93 (SE, 0.022; 95% CI, 0.89-0.97), which was not significantly different from 0.92 (SE, 0.018) reported in the original study (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

When evaluated prospectively, the accuracy of the IOTA LR2 model was similar to that reported in the original study.

摘要

目的

评估 IOTA 逻辑回归模型 LR2 诊断卵巢癌的准确性。

方法

这是一项前瞻性单中心研究,纳入了超声诊断为附件肿瘤的女性患者。所有患者均由一位接受过按照 IOTA 指南进行系统卵巢肿瘤检查培训的二级超声操作员进行检查。根据 IOTA LR2 模型,每位患者的附件病变恶性可能性均被计算。所有患者均在超声检查后 120 天内行手术治疗,将超声结果与手术结果和最终组织学诊断进行比较。

结果

共有 124 名女性纳入最终分析。平均年龄为 53.2(范围 20-91)岁,61/124(49.2%)名患者处于绝经后状态。术后组织学检查发现 66/124(53.2%)名患者存在恶性病变。IOTA LR2 模型的敏感性为 97.0%(95%CI,89.5-99.6%),特异性为 69.0%(95%CI,55.5-80.5%)。受试者工作特征曲线下面积为 0.93(SE,0.022;95%CI,0.89-0.97),与原始研究报道的 0.92(SE,0.018)无显著差异(P>0.05)。

结论

前瞻性评估时,IOTA LR2 模型的准确性与原始研究报道的相似。

相似文献

1
Prospective evaluation of the IOTA logistic regression model LR2 for the diagnosis of ovarian cancer.IOTA 逻辑回归模型 LR2 对卵巢癌诊断的前瞻性评估。
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2012 Sep;40(3):355-9. doi: 10.1002/uog.11088.
2
Prospective evaluation of IOTA logistic regression models LR1 and LR2 in comparison with subjective pattern recognition for diagnosis of ovarian cancer in an outpatient setting.在门诊环境中,对 IOTA 逻辑回归模型 LR1 和 LR2 与主观模式识别进行前瞻性评估,以诊断卵巢癌。
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2018 Jun;51(6):829-835. doi: 10.1002/uog.18918. Epub 2018 Jun 4.
3
Ultrasound-based logistic regression model LR2 versus magnetic resonance imaging for discriminating between benign and malignant adnexal masses: a prospective study.基于超声的逻辑回归模型 LR2 与磁共振成像鉴别附件良恶性肿块:一项前瞻性研究。
Int J Clin Oncol. 2018 Jun;23(3):514-521. doi: 10.1007/s10147-017-1222-y. Epub 2017 Dec 13.
4
Lesion size affects diagnostic performance of IOTA logistic regression models, IOTA simple rules and risk of malignancy index in discriminating between benign and malignant adnexal masses.病灶大小影响 IOTA 逻辑回归模型、IOTA 简单规则和恶性风险指数在鉴别附件包块良恶性方面的诊断性能。
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2012 Sep;40(3):345-54. doi: 10.1002/uog.11167. Epub 2012 Aug 7.
5
Prospective external validation of IOTA methods for classifying adnexal masses and retrospective assessment of two-step strategy using benign descriptors and ADNEX model: Portuguese multicenter study.前瞻性验证 IOTA 方法对附件包块的分类,以及使用良性描述符和 ADNEX 模型对两步策略的回顾性评估:葡萄牙多中心研究。
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2024 Oct;64(4):538-549. doi: 10.1002/uog.27641. Epub 2024 Sep 4.
6
A prospective validation of the IOTA logistic regression models (LR1 and LR2) in comparison to subjective pattern recognition for the diagnosis of ovarian cancer.前瞻性验证 IOTA 逻辑回归模型(LR1 和 LR2)与主观模式识别在卵巢癌诊断中的应用。
Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2013 Nov;23(9):1583-9. doi: 10.1097/IGC.0b013e3182a6171a.
7
Comparative diagnostic accuracy of the IOTA SRR and LR2 scoring systems for discriminating between malignant and Benign Adnexal masses by junior physicians in Chinese patients: a retrospective observational study.中文医师应用 IOTA SRR 和 LR2 评分系统鉴别中国患者良恶性附件包块的对比诊断准确性:一项回顾性观察性研究。
BMC Womens Health. 2023 Nov 8;23(1):585. doi: 10.1186/s12905-023-02719-z.
8
Ovarian cancer prediction in adnexal masses using ultrasound-based logistic regression models: a temporal and external validation study by the IOTA group.基于超声的逻辑回归模型对附件包块进行卵巢癌预测:IOTA 小组的时间和外部验证研究。
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2010 Aug;36(2):226-34. doi: 10.1002/uog.7636.
9
Performance of IOTA ADNEX model in evaluating adnexal masses in a gynecological oncology center in China.IOTA ADNEX 模型在中国妇科肿瘤中心评估附件肿块的性能。
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2019 Dec;54(6):815-822. doi: 10.1002/uog.20363. Epub 2019 Nov 11.
10
Comparison of IOTA three-step strategy and logistic regression model LR2 for discriminating between benign and malignant adnexal masses.比较 IOTA 三步骤策略和逻辑回归模型 LR2 用于鉴别附件肿块良恶性。
Med Ultrason. 2021 May 20;23(2):168-175. doi: 10.11152/mu-2732. Epub 2020 Dec 12.

引用本文的文献

1
Performance of International Ovarian Tumor Analysis (IOTA) predictive models in preoperative discrimination between benign and malignant adnexal lesions: preliminary outcomes in a Tertiary Care Hospital in Greece.国际卵巢肿瘤分析(IOTA)预测模型在术前鉴别附件良恶性病变中的表现:希腊一家三级护理医院的初步结果
Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2025 Jan;311(1):113-122. doi: 10.1007/s00404-024-07859-7. Epub 2024 Dec 10.
2
Comparison of the value of the GI-RADS and ADNEX models in the diagnosis of adnexal tumors by junior physicians.初级医师运用GI-RADS和ADNEX模型诊断附件肿瘤的价值比较。
Front Oncol. 2024 Aug 16;14:1435636. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2024.1435636. eCollection 2024.
3
Comparison of O-RADS with the ADNEX model and IOTA SR for risk stratification of adnexal lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
O-RADS与ADNEX模型及IOTA简明规则用于附件区病变风险分层的比较:一项系统评价和荟萃分析
Front Oncol. 2024 May 2;14:1354837. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2024.1354837. eCollection 2024.
4
Comparative diagnostic accuracy of the IOTA SRR and LR2 scoring systems for discriminating between malignant and Benign Adnexal masses by junior physicians in Chinese patients: a retrospective observational study.中文医师应用 IOTA SRR 和 LR2 评分系统鉴别中国患者良恶性附件包块的对比诊断准确性:一项回顾性观察性研究。
BMC Womens Health. 2023 Nov 8;23(1):585. doi: 10.1186/s12905-023-02719-z.
5
Diagnostic Performances of Ultrasound-Based Models for Predicting Malignancy in Patients with Adnexal Masses.基于超声的模型对附件包块患者恶性肿瘤预测的诊断性能
Healthcare (Basel). 2022 Dec 20;11(1):8. doi: 10.3390/healthcare11010008.
6
Comparison of diagnostic efficiency between IOTA LR2 model and doctors experiences.IOTA LR2 模型与医生经验的诊断效率比较。
Zhong Nan Da Xue Xue Bao Yi Xue Ban. 2022 Aug 28;47(8):1082-1088. doi: 10.11817/j.issn.1672-7347.2022.220051.
7
A comparison of the diagnostic performance of the O-RADS, RMI4, IOTA LR2, and IOTA SR systems by senior and junior doctors.资深医生和初级医生对O-RADS、RMI4、IOTA LR2和IOTA SR系统诊断性能的比较。
Ultrasonography. 2022 Jul;41(3):511-518. doi: 10.14366/usg.21237. Epub 2022 Jan 31.
8
Machine Learning Analysis of Immune Cells for Diagnosis and Prognosis of Cutaneous Melanoma.用于皮肤黑色素瘤诊断和预后的免疫细胞的机器学习分析
J Oncol. 2022 Jan 27;2022:7357637. doi: 10.1155/2022/7357637. eCollection 2022.
9
Diagnostic accuracy of transvaginal ultrasound examination for assigning a specific diagnosis to adnexal masses: A meta-analysis.经阴道超声检查对附件包块进行特定诊断的诊断准确性:一项荟萃分析。
Exp Ther Med. 2020 Dec;20(6):265. doi: 10.3892/etm.2020.9395. Epub 2020 Oct 27.
10
Development and Validation of a Predictive Score for Preoperative Diagnosis of Early Stage Epithelial Ovarian Cancer.早期上皮性卵巢癌术前诊断预测评分的开发与验证
Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2019 Apr 29;20(4):1207-1213. doi: 10.31557/APJCP.2019.20.4.1207.