Real-time ultrasound vs. evaluation of static images in the preoperative assessment of adnexal masses
Van Holsbeke, C. ; Yazbek, J. ; Holland, T. K. ; Daemen, A. ; De Moor, B. ; Testa, A. C. ; Valentin, Lil LU
; Jurkovic, D.
and Timmerman, D.
(2008)
In Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology
32(6).
p.828-831
- Abstract
- Objective To determine if the prediction of the Malignancy of all adnexal mass using pattern recognition, i.e. subjective evaluation of gray-scale and Doppler ultrasound findings, is as accurate when based on static images as it is when based on a real-time ultrasound examination. Methods The static images of 166 non-consecutive patients with 'difficult' adnexal masses, who all underwent surgery and for whom a histopathological diagnosis was available, were evaluated by three experts in gynecological ultrasound (image experts'). All ultrasound examinations bad been performed and the static images saved by a fourth expert sonologist ('real-time' sonologist). All four sonologists classified the adnexal masses as benign or malignant based on... (More)
- Objective To determine if the prediction of the Malignancy of all adnexal mass using pattern recognition, i.e. subjective evaluation of gray-scale and Doppler ultrasound findings, is as accurate when based on static images as it is when based on a real-time ultrasound examination. Methods The static images of 166 non-consecutive patients with 'difficult' adnexal masses, who all underwent surgery and for whom a histopathological diagnosis was available, were evaluated by three experts in gynecological ultrasound (image experts'). All ultrasound examinations bad been performed and the static images saved by a fourth expert sonologist ('real-time' sonologist). All four sonologists classified the adnexal masses as benign or malignant based on their subjective impression and stated with what degree of confidence their diagnosis was made. The diagnostic performance of the real-time sonologist was compared with that of each of The three image experts and with that of the 'consensus opinion' of the image experts (i.e. the diagnosis suggested by at least two of the latter). Results The real-time sonologist correctly predicted the diagnosis with an accuracy of 89% (148/166) vs. 85% (141/166) for the consensus opinion of static images (P = 0.0707). Equivalent values for sensitivity and specificity were 80% (56/170) vs. 83%, (58/70) (P = 0.4142) and 96%) (92/96) us. 86%, (83/96) (P = 0.0027), respectively. Conclusions The preoperative diagnosis of all adnexal mass made on the basis of a real-time ultrasound examination is more precise than a diagnosis made on the basis of saved static ultrasound images. Evaluation of static images is associated with lower diagnostic specificity. Copyright (c) 2008 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
https://lup.lub.lu.se/record/1304338
- author
- Van Holsbeke, C.
; Yazbek, J.
; Holland, T. K.
; Daemen, A.
; De Moor, B.
; Testa, A. C.
; Valentin, Lil
LU
; Jurkovic, D.
and Timmerman, D.
- organization
- publishing date
- 2008
- type
- Contribution to journal
- publication status
- published
- subject
- keywords
- ovarian cancer, pattern recognition, ultrasound, subjective impression, risk of, malignancy, adnexal tumors
- in
- Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology
- volume
- 32
- issue
- 6
- pages
- 828 - 831
- publisher
- John Wiley & Sons Inc.
- external identifiers
-
- wos:000261281400016
- scopus:57149086096
- pmid:18925606
- ISSN
- 1469-0705
- DOI
- 10.1002/uog.6214
- language
- English
- LU publication?
- yes
- id
- ebf21e6e-3322-47a7-9249-b90abac00d6d (old id 1304338)
- date added to LUP
- 2016-04-01 14:29:02
- date last changed
- 2022-02-19 19:13:07
@article{ebf21e6e-3322-47a7-9249-b90abac00d6d,
abstract = {{Objective To determine if the prediction of the Malignancy of all adnexal mass using pattern recognition, i.e. subjective evaluation of gray-scale and Doppler ultrasound findings, is as accurate when based on static images as it is when based on a real-time ultrasound examination. Methods The static images of 166 non-consecutive patients with 'difficult' adnexal masses, who all underwent surgery and for whom a histopathological diagnosis was available, were evaluated by three experts in gynecological ultrasound (image experts'). All ultrasound examinations bad been performed and the static images saved by a fourth expert sonologist ('real-time' sonologist). All four sonologists classified the adnexal masses as benign or malignant based on their subjective impression and stated with what degree of confidence their diagnosis was made. The diagnostic performance of the real-time sonologist was compared with that of each of The three image experts and with that of the 'consensus opinion' of the image experts (i.e. the diagnosis suggested by at least two of the latter). Results The real-time sonologist correctly predicted the diagnosis with an accuracy of 89% (148/166) vs. 85% (141/166) for the consensus opinion of static images (P = 0.0707). Equivalent values for sensitivity and specificity were 80% (56/170) vs. 83%, (58/70) (P = 0.4142) and 96%) (92/96) us. 86%, (83/96) (P = 0.0027), respectively. Conclusions The preoperative diagnosis of all adnexal mass made on the basis of a real-time ultrasound examination is more precise than a diagnosis made on the basis of saved static ultrasound images. Evaluation of static images is associated with lower diagnostic specificity. Copyright (c) 2008 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.}},
author = {{Van Holsbeke, C. and Yazbek, J. and Holland, T. K. and Daemen, A. and De Moor, B. and Testa, A. C. and Valentin, Lil and Jurkovic, D. and Timmerman, D.}},
issn = {{1469-0705}},
keywords = {{ovarian cancer; pattern recognition; ultrasound; subjective impression; risk of; malignancy; adnexal tumors}},
language = {{eng}},
number = {{6}},
pages = {{828--831}},
publisher = {{John Wiley & Sons Inc.}},
series = {{Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology}},
title = {{Real-time ultrasound vs. evaluation of static images in the preoperative assessment of adnexal masses}},
url = {{http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/uog.6214}},
doi = {{10.1002/uog.6214}},
volume = {{32}},
year = {{2008}},
}