Skip to main content
Log in

Ultrasound-based logistic regression model LR2 versus magnetic resonance imaging for discriminating between benign and malignant adnexal masses: a prospective study

  • Original Article
  • Published:
International Journal of Clinical Oncology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

The diagnostic performances of the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis (IOTA) ultrasound-based logistic regression model (LR2) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in discriminating between benign and malignant adnexal masses have not been directly compared in a single study.

Methods

Using the IOTA LR2 model and subjective interpretation of MRI findings by experienced radiologists, 265 consecutive patients with adnexal masses were preoperatively evaluated in two hospitals between February 2014 and December 2015. Definitive histological diagnosis of excised tissues was used as a gold standard.

Results

From the 265 study subjects, 54 (20.4%) tumors were histologically diagnosed as malignant (including 11 borderline and 3 metastatic tumors). Preoperative diagnoses of malignant tumors showed 91.7% total agreement between IOTA LR2 and MRI, with a kappa value of 0.77 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.68–0.86]. Sensitivity of IOTA LR2 (0.94, 95% CI, 0.85–0.98) for predicting malignant tumors was similar to that of MRI (0.96, 95% CI, 0.87–0.99; P = 0.99), whereas specificity of IOTA LR2 (0.98, 95% CI, 0.95–0.99) was significantly higher than that of MRI (0.91, 95% CI, 0.87–0.95; P = 0.002). Combined IOTA LR2 and MRI results gave the greatest sensitivity (1.00, 95% CI, 0.93–1.00) and had similar specificity (0.91, 95% CI, 0.86–0.94) to MRI.

Conclusions

The IOTA LR2 model had a similar sensitivity to MRI for discriminating between benign and malignant tumors and a higher specificity compared with MRI. Our findings suggest that the IOTA LR2 model, either alone or in conjunction with MRI, should be included in preoperative evaluation of adnexal masses.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Kaijser J, Vandecaveye V, Deroose CM et al (2014) Imaging techniques for the pre-surgical diagnosis of adnexal tumours. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 28:683–695

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Timmerman D, Schwärzler P, Collins WP et al (1999) Subjective assessment of adnexal masses with the use of ultrasonography: an analysis of interobserver variability and experience. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 13:11–16

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Kaijser J (2015) Towards an evidence-based approach for diagnosis and management of adnexal masses: findings of the International Ovarian Tumour Analysis (IOTA) studies. Facts Views Vis Obgyn 7:42–59

    PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Meys EM, Kaijser J, Kruitwagen RF et al (2016) Subjective assessment versus ultrasound models to diagnose ovarian cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Cancer 58:17–29

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Sladkevicius P, Valentin L (2015) Interobserver agreement in describing the ultrasound appearance of adnexal masses and in calculating the risk of malignancy using logistic regression models. Clin Cancer Res 21:594–601

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Zannoni L, Savelli L, Jokubkiene L et al (2014) Intra- and interobserver agreement with regard to describing adnexal masses using International Ovarian Tumor Analysis terminology: reproducibility study involving seven observers. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 44:100–108

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Spencer JA, Forstner R, Cunha TM et al (2010) ESUR guidelines for MR imaging of the sonographically indeterminate adnexal mass: an algorithmic approach. Eur Radiol 20:25–35

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Medeiros LR, Freitas LB, Rosa DD et al (2011) Accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging in ovarian tumor: a systematic quantitative review. Am J Obstet Gynecol 204:67 (e1–10)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Timmerman D, Testa AC, Bourne T et al (2005) Logistic regression model to distinguish between the benign and malignant adnexal mass before surgery: a multicenter study by the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis Group. J Clin Oncol 23:8794–8801

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Tavassoli FA, Devilee P (eds) (2003) World Health Organization Classification of Tumors. Pathology and Genetics. Tumors of the breast and female genital organs. IARC Press, Lyon, pp 117–145

    Google Scholar 

  11. Valentin L, Ameye L, Savelli L et al (2011) Adnexal masses difficult to classify as benign or malignant using subjective assessment of gray-scale and Doppler ultrasound findings: logistic regression models do not help. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 38:456–465

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Okamoto Y, Tanaka YO, Tsunoda H et al (2007) Malignant or borderline mucinous cystic neoplasms have a larger number of loculi than mucinous cystadenoma: a retrospective study with MR. J Magn Reson Imaging 26:94–99

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Zhao SH, Qiang JW, Zhang GF et al (2014) MRI in differentiating ovarian borderline from benign mucinous cystadenoma: pathological correlation. J Magn Reson Imaging 39:162–166

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Kaijser J, Van Gorp T, Van Hoorde K et al (2013) A comparison between an ultrasound based prediction model (LR2) and the risk of ovarian malignancy algorithm (ROMA) to assess the risk of malignancy in women with an adnexal mass. Gynecol Oncol 129:377–383

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Mr. Tetsutaro Hamano (P4 Statistics Co. Ltd., Tokyo, Japan) for statistical analysis. We are also grateful to all the women who participated in this study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Koji Matsumoto.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

All authors report no conflict of any financial interest.

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Shimada, K., Matsumoto, K., Mimura, T. et al. Ultrasound-based logistic regression model LR2 versus magnetic resonance imaging for discriminating between benign and malignant adnexal masses: a prospective study. Int J Clin Oncol 23, 514–521 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10147-017-1222-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10147-017-1222-y

Keywords

Navigation