Clinical Department of Gynecological Oncology, Franciszek Lukaszczyk Oncological Center, Bydgoszcz, Poland.
Second Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Medical Center of Postgraduate Education, Warsaw, Poland.
J Ultrasound Med. 2020 May;39(5):939-947. doi: 10.1002/jum.15178. Epub 2019 Nov 29.
The study's main aim was to evaluate the relationship between the performance of predictive models for differential diagnoses of ovarian tumors and levels of diagnostic confidence in subjective assessment (SA) with ultrasound. The second aim was to identify the parameters that differentiate between malignant and benign tumors among tumors initially diagnosed as uncertain by SA.
The study included 250 (55%) benign ovarian masses and 201 (45%) malignant tumors. According to ultrasound findings, the tumors were divided into 6 groups: certainly benign, probably benign, uncertain but benign, uncertain but malignant, probably malignant, and certainly malignant. The performance of the risk of malignancy index, International Ovarian Tumor Analysis assessment of different neoplasias in the adnexa model, and International Ovarian Tumor Analysis logistic regression model 2 was analyzed in subgroups as follows: SA-certain tumors (including certainly benign and certainly malignant) versus SA-probable tumors (probably benign and probably malignant) versus SA-uncertain tumors (uncertain but benign and uncertain but malignant).
We found a progressive decrease in the performance of all models in association with the increased uncertainty in SA. The areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve for the risk of malignancy index, logistic regression model 2, and assessment of different neoplasias in the adnexa model decreased between the SA-certain and SA-uncertain groups by 20%, 28%, and 20%, respectively. The presence of solid parts and a high color score were the discriminatory features between uncertain but benign and uncertain but malignant tumors.
Studies are needed that focus on the subgroup of ovarian tumors that are difficult to classify by SA. In cases of uncertain tumors by SA, the presence of solid components or a high color score should prompt a gynecologic oncology clinic referral.
本研究的主要目的是评估预测模型在卵巢肿瘤鉴别诊断中的表现与超声主观评估(SA)中诊断信心水平之间的关系。第二个目的是确定在 SA 最初诊断为不确定的肿瘤中,哪些参数可区分良恶性肿瘤。
本研究纳入了 250 例(55%)良性卵巢肿块和 201 例(45%)恶性肿瘤。根据超声结果,将肿瘤分为 6 组:肯定良性、可能良性、不确定但良性、不确定但恶性、可能恶性和肯定恶性。分析风险恶性指数、国际卵巢肿瘤分析附件中不同肿瘤评估模型和国际卵巢肿瘤分析逻辑回归模型 2 在以下亚组中的表现:SA 确定肿瘤(包括肯定良性和肯定恶性)与 SA 可能肿瘤(可能良性和可能恶性)与 SA 不确定肿瘤(不确定但良性和不确定但恶性)。
我们发现,随着 SA 不确定性的增加,所有模型的性能均呈逐渐下降趋势。风险恶性指数、逻辑回归模型 2 和附件中不同肿瘤评估模型的受试者工作特征曲线下面积在 SA 确定组与 SA 不确定组之间分别下降了 20%、28%和 20%。存在实性部分和高彩色评分是区分不确定但良性和不确定但恶性肿瘤的特征。
需要针对通过 SA 难以分类的卵巢肿瘤亚组进行研究。在通过 SA 诊断不确定的肿瘤中,如果存在实性成分或高彩色评分,应提示转至妇科肿瘤学诊所。