scholarly journals Prospective evaluation of IOTA logistic regression models LR1 and LR2 in comparison with subjective pattern recognition for diagnosis of ovarian cancer in an outpatient setting

2018 ◽  
Vol 51 (6) ◽  
pp. 829-835 ◽  
Author(s):  
N. Nunes ◽  
G. Ambler ◽  
X. Foo ◽  
M. Widschwendter ◽  
D. Jurkovic
Keyword(s):  
Ovarian Cancer ◽  
Pattern Recognition ◽  
Logistic Regression ◽  
Regression Models ◽  
Outpatient Setting ◽  
Prospective Evaluation ◽  
Logistic Regression Models

A Prospective Validation of the IOTA Logistic Regression Models (LR1 and LR2) in Comparison to Subjective Pattern Recognition for the Diagnosis of Ovarian Cancer

2013 ◽  
Vol 23 (9) ◽  
pp. 1583-1589 ◽  
Author(s):  
Natalie Nunes ◽  
Gareth Ambler ◽  
Wee-Liak Hoo ◽  
Joel Naftalin ◽  
Xulin Foo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Ovarian Cancer ◽  
Pattern Recognition ◽  
Logistic Regression ◽  
Regression Models ◽  
Area Under The Curve ◽  
Positive Likelihood Ratio ◽  
Tertiary Hospital ◽  
Ovarian Tumour ◽  
Logistic Regression Models ◽  
Operative Findings

ObjectivesThis study aimed to assess the accuracy of the International Ovarian Tumour Analysis (IOTA) logistic regression models (LR1 and LR2) and that of subjective pattern recognition (PR) for the diagnosis of ovarian cancer.Methods and MaterialsThis was a prospective single-center study in a general gynecology unit of a tertiary hospital during 33 months. There were 292 consecutive women who underwent surgery after an ultrasound diagnosis of an adnexal tumor. All examinations were by a single level 2 ultrasound operator, according to the IOTA guidelines. The malignancy likelihood was calculated using the IOTA LR1 and LR2. The women were then examined separately by an expert operator using subjective PR. These were compared to operative findings and histology. The sensitivity, specificity, area under the curve (AUC), and accuracy of the 3 methods were calculated and compared.ResultsThe AUCs for LR1 and LR2 were 0.94 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.92–0.97] and 0.93 (95% CI, 0.90–0.96), respectively. Subjective PR gave a positive likelihood ratio (LR+ve) of 13.9 (95% CI, 7.84–24.6) and a LR−ve of 0.049 (95% CI, 0.022–0.107). The corresponding LR+ve and LR−ve for LR1 were 3.33 (95% CI, 2.85–3.55) and 0.03 (95% CI, 0.01–0.10), and for LR2 were 3.58 (95% CI, 2.77–4.63) and 0.052 (95% CI, 0.022–0.123). The accuracy of PR was 0.942 (95% CI, 0.908–0.966), which was significantly higher when compared with 0.829 (95% CI, 0.781–0.870) for LR1 and 0.836 (95% CI, 0.788–0.872) for LR2 (P < 0.001).ConclusionsThe AUC of the IOTA LR1 and LR2 were similar in nonexpert’s hands when compared to the original and validation IOTA studies. The PR method was the more accurate test to diagnose ovarian cancer than either of the IOTA models.

Prospective Evaluation of Logistic Regression Models for the Diagnosis of Ovarian Cancer

2000 ◽  
Vol 96 (1) ◽  
pp. 75-80 ◽  
Author(s):  
NAAILA ASLAM ◽  
SAIKAT BANERJEE ◽  
JOHN V. CARR ◽  
MICHAEL SAVVAS ◽  
RICHARD HOOPER ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Ovarian Cancer ◽  
Logistic Regression ◽  
Regression Models ◽  
Prospective Evaluation ◽  
Logistic Regression Models

scholarly journals The ‘war’ of logistic regression models in the diagnosis of ovarian cancer

2003 ◽  
Vol 22 (2) ◽  
pp. 218-219
Author(s):  
S. Guerriero ◽  
S. Ajossa ◽  
L. Minerba ◽  
G. B. Melis
Keyword(s):  
Ovarian Cancer ◽  
Logistic Regression ◽  
Regression Models ◽  
Logistic Regression Models

OC144: Prospective evaluation of logistic regression models to predict malignancy of adnexal masses prior to surgery

2008 ◽  
Vol 32 (3) ◽  
pp. 289-290 ◽  
Author(s):  
B. Van Calster ◽  
C. Van Holsbeke ◽  
R. Fruscio ◽  
S. Guerriero ◽  
A. Czekierdowski ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Logistic Regression ◽  
Regression Models ◽  
Prospective Evaluation ◽  
Adnexal Masses ◽  
Logistic Regression Models

The impact of SPY angiography on intraoperative decision making and outcomes for post-mastectomy reconstruction

2019 ◽  
pp. 1-5
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Logistic Regression ◽  
Skin Necrosis ◽  
Regression Models ◽  
Multivariable Analysis ◽  
P Value ◽  
Flap Necrosis ◽  
Single Institution ◽  
Logistic Regression Models ◽  
The Impact

Objective: While the use of intraoperative laser angiography (SPY) is increasing in mastectomy patients, its impact in the operating room to change the type of reconstruction performed has not been well described. The purpose of this study is to investigate whether SPY angiography influences post-mastectomy reconstruction decisions and outcomes. Methods and materials: A retrospective analysis of mastectomy patients with reconstruction at a single institution was performed from 2015-2017.All patients underwent intraoperative SPY after mastectomy but prior to reconstruction. SPY results were defined as ‘good’, ‘questionable’, ‘bad’, or ‘had skin excised’. Complications within 60 days of surgery were compared between those whose SPY results did not change the type of reconstruction done versus those who did. Preoperative and intraoperative variables were entered into multivariable logistic regression models if significant at the univariate level. A p-value <0.05 was considered significant. Results: 267 mastectomies were identified, 42 underwent a change in the type of planned reconstruction due to intraoperative SPY results. Of the 42 breasts that underwent a change in reconstruction, 6 had a ‘good’ SPY result, 10 ‘questionable’, 25 ‘bad’, and 2 ‘had areas excised’ (p<0.01). After multivariable analysis, predictors of skin necrosis included patients with ‘questionable’ SPY results (p<0.01, OR: 8.1, 95%CI: 2.06 – 32.2) and smokers (p<0.01, OR:5.7, 95%CI: 1.5 – 21.2). Predictors of any complication included a change in reconstruction (p<0.05, OR:4.5, 95%CI: 1.4-14.9) and ‘questionable’ SPY result (p<0.01, OR: 4.4, 95%CI: 1.6-14.9). Conclusion: SPY angiography results strongly influence intraoperative surgical decisions regarding the type of reconstruction performed. Patients most at risk for flap necrosis and complication post-mastectomy are those with questionable SPY results.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document