Use of IOTA simple rules for diagnosis of ovarian cancer: meta-analysis

被引:89
|
作者
Nunes, N. [1 ]
Ambler, G. [2 ]
Foo, X. [1 ]
Naftalin, J. [1 ]
Widschwendter, M. [3 ]
Jurkovic, D. [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Coll London Hosp, Gynaecol Diagnost Outpatient Treatment Unit, London NW1 2BU, England
[2] UCL, Dept Stat Sci, London, England
[3] UCL, Dept Womens Canc, Inst Womens Hlth, London, England
关键词
adnexal masses; IOTA simple rules; meta-analysis; meta-regression; ovarian cancer; ovarian tumors; pattern recognition; sensitivity; specificity; ultrasound operator level; SIMPLE ULTRASOUND RULES; MALIGNANT ADNEXAL MASSES; EXTERNAL VALIDATION; META-REGRESSION; BENIGN; MODELS; CHARACTERIZE; PERFORMANCE; ACCURACY; TUMORS;
D O I
10.1002/uog.13437
中图分类号
O42 [声学];
学科分类号
070206 ; 082403 ;
摘要
Objectives To present data on prospective evaluation of the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis (IOTA) 'simple-rules' tool for the diagnosis of ovarian cancer and to perform a meta-analysis of studies that utilized the same diagnostic method. Methods In the present study a level-II ultrasound operator systematically assessed the tumors of women with an ultrasound diagnosis of adnexal tumor(s) according to the IOTA simple-rules protocol to determine the risk of the tumor being malignant. The results of simple rules were compared with the 'pattern recognition' method and with histological findings. This validation study was included in the subsequent meta-analysis, for which we searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane from the publication of the first study in 2008. The terms used were 'simple rules', 'simple rules ovarian', 'ovar tumor' and 'ultrasound'. Quality assessment was performed using the modified Quality Assessment of the Diagnostic Accuracy of Studies (QUADAS-2) checklist. Random effects meta-analysis was used to calculate pooled estimates of sensitivity and specificity for the simple-rules tool, and meta-regression was used to investigate heterogeneity across the studies. Results Three hundred and three women were included in the validation study with 168 (55.4%) benign, 19 (6.3%) borderline and 116 (38.3%) malignant tumors on histological examination. The rules were applicable in 237 (78.2%) of the tumors and for these tumors, sensitivity was 96.2% (95% CI, 90.5-99.0%) and specificity was 88.6% (95% CI, 82.0-93.5%). Six of the 88 discovered studies were included in the meta-analysis along with the current validation study, which resulted in inclusion of a total of 3568 patients. When the meta-analysis was performed the pooled sensitivity (when the rules were applicable) was 93% (95% CI, 90-96%) (I-2 = 32.1%) and the pooled specificity was 95% (95% CI, 93-97%) (I-2 = 78.1%). Heterogeneity was observed across the studies. Sensitivity was higher and specificity lower in the study populations in which the prevalence of malignant tumors was greatest. Conclusion The simple rules protocol could be used in 76-89% of tumors and is an accurate test for the diagnosis of ovarian cancer. Assessment by an ultrasound expert is required when the protocol cannot be applied. Copyright (C) 2014 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
引用
收藏
页码:503 / 514
页数:12
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Simple Rules, Not So Simple: The Use of International Ovarian Tumor Analysis (IOTA) Terminology and Simple Rules in Inexperienced Hands in a Prospective Multicenter Cohort Study
    Meys, Evelyne
    Rutten, Iris
    Kruitwagen, Roy
    Slangen, Brigitte
    Lambrechts, Sandrina
    Mertens, Helen
    Nolting, Ernst
    Boskamp, Dieuwke
    Van Gorp, Toon
    [J]. ULTRASCHALL IN DER MEDIZIN, 2017, 38 (06): : 633 - 641
  • [2] Paracetamol use and risk of ovarian cancer: a meta-analysis
    Bonovas, Stefanos
    Filioussi, Kalitsa
    Sitaras, Nikolaos M.
    [J]. BRITISH JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PHARMACOLOGY, 2006, 62 (01) : 113 - 121
  • [3] Diagnostic Accuracy of Biomarkers and International Ovarian Tumor Analysis Simple Rules in Diagnosis of Ovarian Cancer
    Haliti, Tefta Isufaj
    Hoxha, Ilir
    Mojsiu, Rubena
    Mandal, Rohini
    Goc, Goksu
    Hoti, Kreshnike Dedushi
    [J]. HEMATOLOGY-ONCOLOGY CLINICS OF NORTH AMERICA, 2024, 38 (01) : 251 - 265
  • [4] Simple descriptors and simple rules of the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis (IOTA) Group: a prospective study of combined use for the description of adnexal masses
    Peces Rama, Almudena
    Llanos Llanos, Maria Carmen
    Sanchez Ferrer, Maria Luisa
    Alcazar Zambrano, Juan Luis
    Martinez Mendoza, Antonio
    Nieto Diaz, Anibal
    [J]. EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY AND REPRODUCTIVE BIOLOGY, 2015, 195 : 7 - 11
  • [5] Ten simple rules for neuroimaging meta-analysis
    Mueller, Veronika I.
    Cieslik, Edna C.
    Laird, Angela R.
    Fox, Peter T.
    Radua, Joaquim
    Mataix-Cols, David
    Tench, Christopher R.
    Yarkoni, Tal
    Nichols, Thomas E.
    Turkeltaub, Peter E.
    Wager, Tor D.
    Eickhoff, Simon B.
    [J]. NEUROSCIENCE AND BIOBEHAVIORAL REVIEWS, 2018, 84 : 151 - 161
  • [6] Simple ultrasound-based rules for the diagnosis of ovarian cancer
    Timmerman, D.
    Testa, A. C.
    Bourne, T.
    Ameye, L.
    Jurkovic, D.
    Van Holsbeke, C.
    Paladini, D.
    Van Calster, B.
    Vergote, I.
    Van Huffel, S.
    Valentin, L.
    [J]. ULTRASOUND IN OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY, 2008, 31 (06) : 681 - 690
  • [7] Aspirin Use and Mortality in Women With Ovarian Cancer: A Meta-Analysis
    Man, Xiaxia
    Wang, Baogang
    Tan, Yuying
    Yang, Xiaolin
    Zhang, Songling
    [J]. FRONTIERS IN ONCOLOGY, 2021, 10
  • [8] Genital use of talc and risk of ovarian cancer: A meta-analysis
    Boffetta, Paolo
    Berge, Wera
    [J]. CANCER RESEARCH, 2017, 77
  • [9] Genital use of talc and risk of ovarian cancer: a meta-analysis
    Berge, Wera
    Mundt, Kenneth
    Luu, Hung
    Boffetta, Paolo
    [J]. EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CANCER PREVENTION, 2018, 27 (03) : 248 - 257
  • [10] IOTA Simple Rules in Differentiating between Benign and Malignant Ovarian Tumors
    Tantipalakorn, Charuwan
    Wanapirak, Chanane
    Khunamornpong, Surapan
    Sukpan, Kornkanok
    Tongsong, Theera
    [J]. ASIAN PACIFIC JOURNAL OF CANCER PREVENTION, 2014, 15 (13) : 5123 - 5126