ArticleUltrasound quarterly2019
Can Presurgical Ultrasound Predict Survival in Women With Ovarian Masses?
Article in Ultrasound quarterly, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThis study aimed to determine the ability of ultrasound to predict survival and detect more aggressive tumors in women with ovarian masses. MATERIALS AND
methodsInstitutional review board approval was obtained. A total of 167 patients who presented with adnexal mass/masses were included. These were documented as benign or malignant on ultrasound. Age, date of diagnosis and date of death, type of tumor, and tumor marker cancer antigen 125 (CA-125) values were recorded. A CA-125 value of less than 35 U/mL was considered normal. All cases underwent surgery. Pathologic findings were considered as reference standard. The 2 × 2 cross-tabulations were used to correlate dichotomized CA-125, US diagnosis (benign vs malignant), and pathologic status. Difference of distributions was tested using the Wilcoxon rank sum test, and their association was tested using the Fisher exact test. All tests were 2-sided, and P values of 0.05 or less were considered statistically significant. Kaplan-Meir curves were generated to estimate survival.
resultsThere was a statistically significant difference in patients with benign versus malignant tumors based on pathology (P < 0.0001) and ultrasound (P < 0.0003). Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and accuracy of ultrasound were 55%, 86%, 90% and 46%, and 81%. Patients diagnosed as having malignant tumors based on ultrasound had statistically significant worse overall survival. Probability of survival based on pathologic diagnosis of malignancy was statistically significant at P < 0.0003; based on ultrasound, P < 0.0001; and based on CA-125, P < 0.041.
conclusionPatients who had ultrasound-based prediction of ovarian malignancy had overall worse survival probability (P < 0.0001) compared with CA-125- or pathology-based prediction.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.