Oops, you're using an old version of your browser so some of the features on this page may not be displaying properly.

MINIMAL Requirements: Google Chrome 24+Mozilla Firefox 20+Internet Explorer 11Opera 15–18Apple Safari 7SeaMonkey 2.15-2.23

Poster Display session

57P - International Ovarian Tumor Analysis (IOTA) Simple Ultrasound Rules and Risk of Malignancy Index in differentiating benign from malignant ovarian masses

Date

23 Feb 2023

Session

Poster Display session

Presenters

Sakshi Modi

Citation

Annals of Oncology (2023) 8 (1suppl_1): 100811-100811. 10.1016/esmoop/esmoop100811

Authors

S.S. Modi, P. Goyal, D. Desai, R. Verma

Author affiliations

  • Government Medical College Surat, Surat/IN

Resources

Login to get immediate access to this content.

If you do not have an ESMO account, please create one for free.

Abstract 57P

Background

Amongst gynaecological cancers, ovarian cancers are associated with unfavourable prognosis and high mortality owing to presentation at advanced stages. Present study aims to compare two diagnostic algorithms, International Ovarian Tumor Analysis (IOTA) Simple Ultrasound Rules versus Risk of Malignancy Index (RMI 2) for detection of ovarian malignancies.

Methods

50 consenting patients with ovarian mass (reproductive and menopausal age groups) evaluated at our institute over a period of nine months were prospectively enrolled. Patients were subjected to detailed examination, ultrasonographic assessment by gynaecologists and lab investigations including CA 125 was done. Data was collected using a standardised pretested proforma. Patient management as per departmental protocol was continued.

Results

IOTA Simple Ultrasound Rules consistently performed better than RMI 2 in detection of ovarian malignancies, with better sensitivity (96.96% vs 75.6%), specificity (71.4% vs 64.7%), positive predictive value (88.8% vs 80.6%) and negative predictive value (90.9% vs 57.8%) respectively.

Conclusions

Results of present study indicates that IOTA Simple USG Rules has better Sensitivity, Specificity, Positive Predictive Value and Negative Predictive Value than Risk of Malignancy Index, and a larger study may be warranted to obtain results which can be extrapolated to the general population.

Legal entity responsible for the study

The authors.

Funding

Has not received any funding.

Disclosure

All authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

This site uses cookies. Some of these cookies are essential, while others help us improve your experience by providing insights into how the site is being used.

For more detailed information on the cookies we use, please check our Privacy Policy.

Customise settings
  • Necessary cookies enable core functionality. The website cannot function properly without these cookies, and you can only disable them by changing your browser preferences.