7 Imaging in gynaecology: How good are we in identifying endometriomas?

Imaging in gynaecology: How good are we in identifying endometriomas? File(s)Imaging in gynaecology: How good are we in identifying endometriomas?.pdf (2.32 MB) Show more Published version Author(s) Type Journal Article AbstractShow more AIM: To evaluate the performance of subjective evaluation of ultrasound findings (pattern recognition) to discriminate endometriomas from other types of adnexal masses and to compare the demographic and ultrasound characteristics of the true positive cases with those cases that were presumed to be an endometrioma but proved to have a different -histology (false positive cases) and the endometriomas missed by pattern recognition (false negative cases). METHODS: All patients in the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis (IOTA ) studies were included for analysis. In the IOTA studies, patients with an adnexal mass that were preoperatively examined by expert sonologists following the same standardized ultrasound protocol were prospectively included in 21 international centres. Sensitivity and specificity to discriminate endometriomas from other types of adnexal masses using pattern recognition were calculated. Ultrasound and some demographic variables of the masses presumed to be an endometrioma were analysed (true -positives and false positives) and compared with the variables of the endometriomas missed by pattern recognition (false negatives) as well as the true negatives. RESULTS: IOTA phase 1, 1b and 2 included 3511 patients of which 2560 were benign (73%) and 951 malignant (27%). The dataset included 713 endometriomas. Sensitivity and specificity for pattern recognition were 81% (577/713) and 97% (2723/2798). The true positives were more often unilocular with ground glass echogenicity than the masses in any other category. Among the 75 false positive cases, 66 were benign but 9 were malignant (5 borderline tumours, 1 rare primary invasive tumour and 3 endometrioid adenocarcinomas). The presumed diagnosis suggested by the sonologist in case of a missed endometrioma was mostly functional cyst or cystadenoma. CONCLUSION: Expert sonologists can quite accurately discriminate endometriomas from other types of adnexal masses, but in this dataset 1% of the masses that were classified as endometrioma by pattern recognition proved to be malignancies. Date Issued 2009-06-30 Date Acceptance 2009-06-01 Citation Facts, Views & Vision in ObGyn, 2009, 1 (1), pp.7-17 ISSN 2032-0418 Publisher Universa Press Start Page 7 End Page 17 Journal / Book Title Facts, Views & Vision in ObGyn Volume 1 Issue 1 Copyright Statement This is an open access journal which means that all content is freely available without charge to the user or his/her institution. Users are allowed to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of the articles in this journal without asking prior permission from the publisher or the author. This is in accordance with the BOAI definition of open access. Subjects Ultrasonography adnexal tumours endometrioma endometriosis pattern recognition subjective evaluation Publication Status Published