Prospective cross-validation of Doppler ultrasound examination and gray-scale ultrasound imaging for discrimination of benign and malignant pelvic masses
- PMID: 10586480
- DOI: 10.1046/j.1469-0705.1999.14040273.x
Prospective cross-validation of Doppler ultrasound examination and gray-scale ultrasound imaging for discrimination of benign and malignant pelvic masses
Abstract
Objective: To cross-validate, prospectively, the diagnostic performance of established ultrasound methods for discrimination of benign and malignant pelvic masses.
Methods: A total of 173 consecutive women with a pelvic mass judged clinically to be of adnexal origin underwent preoperative ultrasound examination including color and spectral Doppler techniques. A total of 149 tumors were benign, and 24 were malignant. The sensitivity and false-positive rate with regard to malignancy were calculated for the following methods, using cut-off values recommended in previous publications: Lerner score; ultrasound morphology, i.e. tumors without solid components being classified as benign and tumors with solid components as malignant; tumor color score; pulsatility index; resistance index; time-averaged maximum velocity; peak systolic velocity; the combined use of ultrasound morphology and tumor color score and the combined use of ultrasound morphology and peak systolic velocity. Sensitivity and false-positive rate were also calculated for subjective evaluation of the gray-scale ultrasound image and for subjective evaluation of the gray-scale ultrasound image supplemented with subjective evaluation of color Doppler ultrasound examination. The confidence with which the diagnosis was made, based on subjective evaluation, was rated on a visual analog scale.
Results: Subjective evaluation of the gray-scale ultrasound image was by far the best method for distinguishing benign from malignant tumors (sensitivity 88%, false-positive rate 4%), followed in descending order by subjective evaluation of the gray-scale ultrasound image supplemented with color Doppler examination, the Lerner score and the time-averaged maximum velocity. Adding Doppler examination to subjective evaluation of the gray-scale image did not increase the number of correct diagnoses, but it increased the confidence with which a correct diagnosis was made in 14% of tumors. In 11 tumors (6% of the series as a whole), the addition of Doppler examination changed the diagnosis based on subjective evaluation of the gray-scale ultrasound image from an incorrect (n = 1) or uncertain (n = 10) diagnosis to a correct and confident diagnosis.
Conclusion: In experienced hands, subjective evaluation of the gray-scale ultrasound image is the best ultrasound method for discriminating between benign and malignant adnexal masses. The main advantage of adding Doppler examination to subjective evaluation of the gray-scale image is an increase in the confidence with which a correct diagnosis is made.
Similar articles
-
Comparison of Lerner score, Doppler ultrasound examination, and their combination for discrimination between benign and malignant adnexal masses.Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2000 Feb;15(2):143-7. doi: 10.1046/j.1469-0705.2000.00028.x. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2000. PMID: 10775998
-
Pattern recognition of pelvic masses by gray-scale ultrasound imaging: the contribution of Doppler ultrasound.Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 1999 Nov;14(5):338-47. doi: 10.1046/j.1469-0705.1999.14050338.x. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 1999. PMID: 10623994
-
Intravenous contrast ultrasound examination using contrast-tuned imaging (CnTI) and the contrast medium SonoVue for discrimination between benign and malignant adnexal masses with solid components.Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2009 Dec;34(6):699-710. doi: 10.1002/uog.7464. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2009. PMID: 19924735
-
Flow characteristics in benign and malignant gynecologic tumors using transvaginal color flow Doppler.Obstet Gynecol. 1994 Jan;83(1):125-30. Obstet Gynecol. 1994. PMID: 8272293 Review.
-
[Doppler ultrasonography in the diagnosis of ovarian cysts: indications, pertinence and diagnostic criteria].J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod (Paris). 2001 Nov;30(1 Suppl):S20-33. J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod (Paris). 2001. PMID: 11917373 Review. French.
Cited by
-
Diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up of borderline ovarian tumors.Oncologist. 2012;17(12):1515-33. doi: 10.1634/theoncologist.2012-0139. Epub 2012 Sep 28. Oncologist. 2012. PMID: 23024155 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Quality assurance and its impact on ovarian visualization rates in the multicenter United Kingdom Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening (UKCTOCS).Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2016 Feb;47(2):228-35. doi: 10.1002/uog.14929. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2016. PMID: 26095052 Free PMC article. Clinical Trial.
-
ESGO/ISUOG/IOTA/ESGE Consensus Statement on pre-operative diagnosis of ovarian tumors.Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2021 Jul;31(7):961-982. doi: 10.1136/ijgc-2021-002565. Epub 2021 Jun 10. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2021. PMID: 34112736 Free PMC article. Review.
-
A new computer-aided diagnostic tool for non-invasive characterisation of malignant ovarian masses: results of a multicentre validation study.Eur Radiol. 2010 Aug;20(8):1822-30. doi: 10.1007/s00330-010-1750-6. Epub 2010 Mar 20. Eur Radiol. 2010. PMID: 20306081
-
Contrast-enhanced ultrasound in ovarian tumors - diagnostic parameters: method presentation and initial experience.Clujul Med. 2013;86(1):31-5. Epub 2013 Feb 4. Clujul Med. 2013. PMID: 26527912 Free PMC article.
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical