Aim: To determine how accurately and confidently examiners with different levels of ultrasound experience can classify adnexal masses as benign or malignant and suggest a specific histological diagnosis when evaluating ultrasound images using pattern recognition. Methods: Ultrasound images of selected adnexal masses were evaluated by 3 expert sonologists, 2 senior and 4 junior trainees. They were instructed to classify the masses using pattern recognition as benign or malignant, to state the level of confidence with which this classification was made and to suggest a specific histological diagnosis. Sensitivity, specificity, accuracy and positive and negative likelihood ratios (LR+ and LR–) with regard to malignancy were calculated. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of pattern recognition was calculated by using six levels of diagnostic confidence. Results: 166 masses were examined, of which 42% were malignant. Sensitivity with regard to malignancy ranged from 80 to 86% for the experts, was 70 and 84% for the 2 senior trainees and ranged from 70 to 86% for the junior trainees. The specificity of the experts ranged from 79 to 91%, was 77 and 89% for the senior trainees and ranged from 59 to 83% for the junior trainees. The experts were uncertain about their diagnosis in 4–13% of the cases, the senior trainees in 15–20% and the junior trainees in 67–100% of the cases. The AUCs ranged from 0.861 to 0.922 for the experts, were 0.842 and 0.855 for the senior trainees, and ranged from 0.726 to 0.795 for the junior trainees. The experts suggested a correct specific histological diagnosis in 69–77% of the cases. All 6 trainees did so significantly less often (22–42% of the cases). Conclusion: Expert sonologists can accurately classify adnexal masses as benign or malignant and can successfully predict the specific histological diagnosis in many cases. Whilst less experienced operators perform reasonably well when predicting the benign or malignant nature of the mass, they do so with a very low level of diagnostic confidence and are unable to state the likely histology of a mass in most cases.

Keywords:
Ultrasound experience, Diagnostic confidence, Ovarian tumors, Subjective impression, Pattern recognition, Risk of malignancy, Statistical models
This content is only available via PDF.
© 2009 S. Karger AG, Basel
2009
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.