Real-time ultrasound vs. evaluation of static images in the preoperative assessment of adnexal masses

被引:27
|
作者
Van Holsbeke, C. [1 ,2 ]
Yazbek, J. [4 ]
Holland, T. K. [4 ]
Daemen, A. [3 ]
De Moor, B. [3 ]
Testa, A. C. [5 ]
Valentin, L. [6 ]
Jurkovic, D. [4 ]
Timmerman, D. [2 ]
机构
[1] Ziekenhuis Oost Limburg, Dept Obstet & Gynaecol, B-3600 Genk, Belgium
[2] Univ Hosp Leuven, Dept Obstet & Gynaecol, Louvain, Belgium
[3] Katholieke Univ Leuven, Dept Elect Engn, ESAT SCD, Louvain, Belgium
[4] Kings Coll Hosp London, Early Pregnancy & Gynaecol Assessment Unit, London, England
[5] Univ Cattolica Sacro Cuore, Ist Clin Ostetr & Ginecol, Rome, Italy
[6] Lund Univ, Dept Obstet & Gynaecol, Malmo Univ Hosp, S-22100 Lund, Sweden
关键词
adnexal tumors; ovarian cancer; pattern recognition; risk of malignancy; subjective impression; ultrasound;
D O I
10.1002/uog.6214
中图分类号
O42 [声学];
学科分类号
070206 ; 082403 ;
摘要
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.
引用
收藏
页码:828 / 831
页数:4
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Preoperative ultrasound assessment of adnexal masses in premenopausal women
    Milad, MP
    Cohen, L
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GYNECOLOGY & OBSTETRICS, 1999, 66 (02) : 137 - 141
  • [2] COLOR DOPPLER ULTRASOUND IN THE PREOPERATIVE ASSESSMENT OF ADNEXAL MASSES
    ZANETTA, G
    VERGANI, P
    LISSONI, A
    ACTA OBSTETRICIA ET GYNECOLOGICA SCANDINAVICA, 1994, 73 (08) : 637 - 641
  • [3] Contribution of ultrasound in preoperative assessment of adnexal masses in postmenopausal women
    Abdelhedi, C.
    Souayeh, N.
    Gomri, E.
    Bettaieb, H.
    Rouis, H.
    Hsayaoui, N.
    Nouira, M.
    Mbarki, C.
    BJOG-AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNAECOLOGY, 2024, 131 : 146 - 147
  • [4] Utilization of ultrasound as a diagnostic tool in the preoperative assessment of patients with adnexal masses
    Terzic, Milan
    Dotlic, Jelena
    Bila, Jovan
    Pilic, Igor
    Nikolic, Branka
    Kocijancic, Dusica
    Likic, Ivana
    Arsenovic, Nebojsa
    Mihailovic, Tihomir
    Bugarski, Diana
    JOURNAL OF BUON, 2015, 20 (03): : 862 - 869
  • [5] Assessment of a new logistic model in the preoperative evaluation of adnexal masses
    Alcázar, JL
    Errasti, T
    Laparte, C
    Jurado, M
    López-García, G
    JOURNAL OF ULTRASOUND IN MEDICINE, 2001, 20 (08) : 841 - 848
  • [6] Real-time vs. static ultrasound-guided needle cricothyroidotomy: a randomized crossover simulation trial
    Watanabe, Hidenobu
    Nakazawa, Harumasa
    Tokumine, Joho
    Yorozu, Tomoko
    SCIENTIFIC REPORTS, 2025, 15 (01):
  • [7] REAL-TIME VS STATIC SCANNING
    YEH, HC
    JOURNAL OF ULTRASOUND IN MEDICINE, 1984, 3 (10) : 462 - &
  • [8] Dashboards vs. real-time data
    Stavit, Jeremy
    CONTROL ENGINEERING, 2009, 56 (10) : 12 - 12
  • [9] A Comparison of Anatomical Landmark vs Ultrasound Static vs Ultrasound Real-Time Technique for Internal Jugular Vein Cannulation
    Jeyaraj, N., I
    Jena, N. N.
    Smith, J.
    Douglas, K.
    ANNALS OF EMERGENCY MEDICINE, 2017, 70 (04) : S133 - S133
  • [10] REAL-TIME VS STATIC SCANNING - REPLY
    HABER, K
    HUNTER, TB
    JOURNAL OF ULTRASOUND IN MEDICINE, 1984, 3 (10) : 474 - 474