A New Computer-aided Diagnostic Tool for Non-invasive Characterisation of Malignant Ovarian Masses: Results of a Multicentre Validation Study

Overview

Journal Eur Radiol

Specialty Radiology

Date 2010 Mar 23

PMID 20306081

Citations 12

Authors

Olivier Lucidarme

Jean-Paul Akakpo

Seth Granberg

Mario Sideri

Hanoch Levavi

Achim Schneider

Philippe Autier

Dror Nir

Harry Bleiberg

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Objectives: To prospectively assess an innovative computer-aided diagnostic technology that quantifies characteristic features of backscattered ultrasound and theoretically allows transvaginal sonography (TVS) to discriminate benign from malignant adnexal masses.

Methods: Women (n = 264) scheduled for surgical removal of at least one ovary in five centres were included. Preoperative three-dimensional (3D)-TVS was performed and the voxel data were analysed by the new technology. The findings at 3D-TVS, serum CA125 levels and the TVS-based diagnosis were compared with histology. Cancer was deemed present when invasive or borderline cancerous processes were observed histologically.

Results: Among 375 removed ovaries, 141 cancers (83 adenocarcinomas, 24 borderline, 16 cases of carcinomatosis, nine of metastases and nine others) and 234 non-cancerous ovaries (107 normal, 127 benign tumours) were histologically diagnosed. The new computer-aided technology correctly identified 138/141 malignant lesions and 206/234 non-malignant tissues (98% sensitivity, 88% specificity). There were no false-negative results among the 47 FIGO stage I/II ovarian lesions. Standard TVS and CA125 had sensitivities/specificities of 94%/66% and 89%/75%, respectively. Combining standard TVS and the new technology in parallel significantly improved TVS specificity from 66% to 92% (p < 0.0001).

Conclusions: Computer-aided quantification of backscattered ultrasound is a highly sensitive for the diagnosis of malignant ovarian masses.

Citing Articles

Application of artificial intelligence to ultrasound imaging for benign gynecological disorders: systematic review.

Moro F, Giudice M, Ciancia M, Zace D, Baldassari G, Vagni M Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2025; 65(3):295-302.

PMID: 39888598 PMC: 11872345. DOI: 10.1002/uog.29171.

Enhancing Ovarian Tumor Diagnosis: Performance of Convolutional Neural Networks in Classifying Ovarian Masses Using Ultrasound Images.

Giourga M, Petropoulos I, Stavros S, Potiris A, Gerede A, Sapantzoglou I J Clin Med. 2024; 13(14).

PMID: 39064163 PMC: 11277638. DOI: 10.3390/jcm13144123.

Extent of use of artificial intelligence & machine learning protocols in cancer diagnosis: A scoping review.

Dang A, Dang D, Vallish B Indian J Med Res. 2023; 157(1):11-22.

PMID: 37040222 PMC: 10284367. DOI: 10.4103/ijmr.IJMR_555_20.

Analysis of computer-aided diagnostics in the preoperative diagnosis of ovarian cancer: a systematic review.

Koch A, Jeelof L, Muntinga C, Gootzen T, van de Kruis N, Nederend J Insights Imaging. 2023; 14(1):34.

PMID: 36790570 PMC: 9931983. DOI: 10.1186/s13244-022-01345-x.

A decision support system based on radiomics and machine learning to predict the risk of malignancy of ovarian masses from transvaginal ultrasonography and serum CA-125.

Chiappa V, Interlenghi M, Bogani G, Salvatore C, Bertolina F, Sarpietro G Eur Radiol Exp. 2021; 5(1):28.

PMID: 34308487 PMC: 8310829. DOI: 10.1186/s41747-021-00226-0.

References

Fenchel S, Grab D, Nuessle K, Kotzerke J, Rieber A, Kreienberg R . Asymptomatic adnexal masses: correlation of FDG PET and histopathologic findings. Radiology. 2002; 223(3):780-8. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2233001850. View

Timmerman D, Verrelst H, Bourne T, Moor B, COLLINS W, Vergote I . Artificial neural network models for the preoperative discrimination between malignant and benign adnexal masses. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 1999; 13(1):17-25. DOI: 10.1046/j.1469-0705.1999.13010017.x. View

. The role of the generalist obstetrician-gynecologist in the early detection of ovarian cancer. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2003; 80(2):235-8. DOI: 10.1016/s0020-7292(03)00022-5. View

Valentin L . Prospective cross-validation of Doppler ultrasound examination and gray-scale ultrasound imaging for discrimination of benign and malignant pelvic masses. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 1999; 14(4):273-83. DOI: 10.1046/j.1469-0705.1999.14040273.x. View

Bruning J, Becker R, Entezami M, Loy V, Vonk R, Weitzel H . Knowledge-based system ADNEXPERT to assist the sonographic diagnosis of adnexal tumors. Methods Inf Med. 1997; 36(3):201-6. View

Tingulstad S, Skjeldestad F, Hagen B . The effect of centralization of primary surgery on survival in ovarian cancer patients. Obstet Gynecol. 2003; 102(3):499-505. DOI: 10.1016/s0029-7844(03)00579-9. View

Lerner J, Timor-Tritsch I, Federman A, Abramovich G . Transvaginal ultrasonographic characterization of ovarian masses with an improved, weighted scoring system. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1994; 170(1 Pt 1):81-5. DOI: 10.1016/s0002-9378(94)70388-4. View

Bronshtein M, Yoffe N, Brandes J, Blumenfeld Z . Hair as a sonographic marker of ovarian teratomas: improved identification using transvaginal sonography and simulation model. J Clin Ultrasound. 1991; 19(6):351-5. DOI: 10.1002/jcu.1870190605. View

Grab D, Flock F, Stohr I, Nussle K, Rieber A, Fenchel S . Classification of asymptomatic adnexal masses by ultrasound, magnetic resonance imaging, and positron emission tomography. Gynecol Oncol. 2000; 77(3):454-9. DOI: 10.1006/gyno.2000.5768. View

10.

Tingulstad S, Hagen B, Skjeldestad F, Onsrud M, Kiserud T, Halvorsen T . Evaluation of a risk of malignancy index based on serum CA125, ultrasound findings and menopausal status in the pre-operative diagnosis of pelvic masses. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1996; 103(8):826-31. DOI: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.1996.tb09882.x. View

11.

Guerriero S, Alcazar J, Coccia M, Ajossa S, Scarselli G, Boi M . Complex pelvic mass as a target of evaluation of vessel distribution by color Doppler sonography for the diagnosis of adnexal malignancies: results of a multicenter European study. J Ultrasound Med. 2002; 21(10):1105-11. DOI: 10.7863/jum.2002.21.10.1105. View

12.

Sarty G, Liang W, Sonka M, Pierson R . Semiautomated segmentation of ovarian follicular ultrasound images using a knowledge-based algorithm. Ultrasound Med Biol. 1998; 24(1):27-42. DOI: 10.1016/s0301-5629(97)00213-5. View

13.

Depriest P, Shenson D, Fried A, Hunter J, Andrews S, Gallion H . A morphology index based on sonographic findings in ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 1993; 51(1):7-11. DOI: 10.1006/gyno.1993.1238. View

14.

Depriest P, Varner E, Powell J, Fried A, Puls L, Higgins R . The efficacy of a sonographic morphology index in identifying ovarian cancer: a multi-institutional investigation. Gynecol Oncol. 1994; 55(2):174-8. DOI: 10.1006/gyno.1994.1273. View

15.

Ferrazzi E, Zanetta G, Dordoni D, Berlanda N, Mezzopane R, Lissoni A . Transvaginal ultrasonographic characterization of ovarian masses: comparison of five scoring systems in a multicenter study. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 1997; 10(3):192-7. DOI: 10.1046/j.1469-0705.1997.10030192.x. View

16.

Alcazar J, Errasti T . Transvaginal color Doppler sonography in adnexal masses: which parameter performs best?. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 1996; 8(2):114-9. DOI: 10.1046/j.1469-0705.1996.08020114.x. View

17.

Muzzolini R, Yang Y, Pierson R . Multiresolution texture segmentation with application to diagnostic ultrasound images. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 1993; 12(1):108-23. DOI: 10.1109/42.222674. View

18.

Menon U, Talaat A, Rosenthal A, Macdonald N, Jeyerajah A, Skates S . Performance of ultrasound as a second line test to serum CA125 in ovarian cancer screening. BJOG. 2000; 107(2):165-9. DOI: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2000.tb11685.x. View

19.

Engel J, Eckel R, Schubert-Fritschle G, Kerr J, Kuhn W, Diebold J . Moderate progress for ovarian cancer in the last 20 years: prolongation of survival, but no improvement in the cure rate. Eur J Cancer. 2002; 38(18):2435-45. DOI: 10.1016/s0959-8049(02)00495-1. View

20.

Granberg S, Wikland M, Jansson I . Macroscopic characterization of ovarian tumors and the relation to the histological diagnosis: criteria to be used for ultrasound evaluation. Gynecol Oncol. 1989; 35(2):139-44. DOI: 10.1016/0090-8258(89)90031-0. View