Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40247746›Full record

Observational studyUltrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology2025

Ultrasound examiners' ability to describe ovarian cancer spread using preacquired ultrasound videoclips from a selected patient sample with high prevalence of cancer spread.

D Fischerova, P Pinto, M Pesta, M Blasko, M C Moruzzi, A C Testa, D Franchi, V Chiappa, J L Alcázar, M Wiesnerova and 3 more

Registry-linked trialAbstract readMulticenter StudyObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03808792 (A Comparison Between Ultrasound, CT), which is not on this map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT03808792 unknown statusnot on this map

A Comparison Between Ultrasound, CT (CT) and Whole-body Diffusion-weighted MRI (WB-DWI/MRI) in the Assessment of Operability in Patients With Ovarian Cancer

TypeobservationalSponsorCharles University, Czech RepublicRan2020 to 2022Enrolled400ConditionsOvarian CancerArmsUltrasound, CT and WB-DWI/MRI
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors.

D FischerovaGynecologic Oncology Centre, Department of Gynecology, Obstetrics and Neonatology, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General University Hospital in Prague, Prague, Czech Republic.ORCID 0000-0002-7224-3218
P PintoDepartment of Gynecology, Portuguese Institute of Oncology Francisco Gentil, Lisbon, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0002-6459-8529
M PestaFaculty of Mathematics and Physics, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic.ORCID 0000-0001-5311-0797
M BlaskoDepartment of Computer Science, Faculty of Electrical Engineering, Czech Technical University in Prague, Prague, Czech Republic.ORCID 0000-0002-9459-019X
M C MoruzziGynecologic Oncology Unit, Department of Woman and Child Health and Public Health, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, Rome, Italy.
A C TestaGynecologic Oncology Unit, Department of Woman and Child Health and Public Health, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, Rome, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-2217-8726
D FranchiPreventive Gynecology Unit, Division of Gynecology, European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-3950-5538
V ChiappaDepartment of Gynecologic Oncology, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milan, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-1811-209X
J L AlcázarDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Clinica Universidad de Navarra, University of Navarra, Pamplona, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-9700-0853
M WiesnerovaMasaryk University Institute of Biostatistics and Analyses, Brno, Czech Republic.
D CibulaGynecologic Oncology Centre, Department of Gynecology, Obstetrics and Neonatology, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General University Hospital in Prague, Prague, Czech Republic.ORCID 0000-0001-6387-9356
L ValentinDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Skåne University Hospital, Malmö, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0002-3830-6414
collaborators

Funding

Ministry of Health of the Czech Republic (Czech Health Research Council) NV19-03-00552
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo assess the ability, as well as factors affecting the ability, of ultrasound examiners with different levels of ultrasound experience to detect correctly infiltration of ovarian cancer in predefined anatomical locations, and to evaluate the inter-rater agreement regarding the presence or absence of cancer infiltration, using preacquired ultrasound videoclips obtained in a selected patient sample with a high prevalence of cancer spread.

methodsThis study forms part of the Imaging Study in Advanced ovArian Cancer multicenter observational study (NCT03808792). Ultrasound videoclips showing assessment of infiltration of ovarian cancer were obtained by the principal investigator (an ultrasound expert, who did not participate in rating) at 19 predefined anatomical sites in the abdomen and pelvis, including five sites that, if infiltrated, would indicate tumor non-resectability. For each site, there were 10 videoclips showing cancer infiltration and 10 showing no cancer infiltration. The reference standard was either findings at surgery with histological confirmation or response to chemotherapy. For statistical analysis, the 19 sites were grouped into four anatomical regions: pelvis, middle abdomen, upper abdomen and lymph nodes. The videoclips were assessed by raters comprising both senior gynecologists (mainly self-trained expert ultrasound examiners who perform preoperative ultrasound assessment of ovarian cancer spread almost daily) and gynecologists who had undergone a minimum of 6 months' supervised training in the preoperative ultrasound assessment of ovarian cancer spread in a gynecological oncology center. The raters were classified as highly experienced or less experienced based on annual individual caseload and the number of years that they had been performing ultrasound evaluation of ovarian cancer spread. Raters were aware that for each site there would be 10 videoclips with and 10 without cancer infiltration. Each rater independently classified every videoclip as showing or not showing cancer infiltration and rated the image quality (on a scale from 0 to 10) and their diagnostic confidence (on a scale from 0 to 10). A generalized linear mixed model with random effects was used to estimate which factors (including level of experience, image quality, diagnostic confidence and anatomical region) affected the likelihood of a correct classification of cancer infiltration. We assessed the observed percentage of videoclips classified correctly, the expected percentage of videoclips classified correctly based on the generalized linear mixed model and inter-rater agreement (reliability) in classifying anatomical sites as being infiltrated by cancer.

resultsTwenty-five raters participated in the study, of whom 13 were highly experienced and 12 were less experienced. The observed percentage of correct classification of cancer infiltration ranged from 70% to 100% depending on rater and anatomical site, and the median percentage of correct classification for the 25 raters ranged from 90% to 100%. The probability of correct classification of all 380 videoclips ranged from 0.956 to 0.975 and was not affected by the rater's level of ultrasound experience. The likelihood of correct classification increased with increased image quality and diagnostic confidence and was affected by anatomical region. It was highest for sites in the pelvis, second highest for those in the middle abdomen, third highest for lymph nodes and lowest for sites in the upper abdomen. The inter-rater agreement of all 25 raters regarding the presence of cancer infiltration ranged from substantial (Fleiss kappa, 0.68 (95% CI, 0.66-0.71)) to very good (Fleiss kappa, 0.99 (95% CI, 0.97-1.00)) depending on the anatomical site. It was lowest for sites in the upper abdomen (Fleiss kappa, 0.68 (95% CI, 0.66-0.71) to 0.97 (95% CI, 0.94-0.99)) and highest for sites in the pelvis (Fleiss kappa, 0.94 (95% CI, 0.92-0.97) to 0.99 (95% CI, 0.97-1.00)).

conclusionsUltrasound examiners with different levels of ultrasound experience can classify correctly predefined anatomical sites as being infiltrated or not infiltrated by ovarian cancer based on video recordings obtained by an experienced ultrasound examiner, and the inter-rater agreement is substantial. The likelihood of correct classification as well as the inter-rater agreement is highest for sites in the pelvis and lowest for sites in the upper abdomen. However, owing to the study design, our results regarding diagnostic accuracy and inter-rater agreement are likely to be overoptimistic. © 2025 The Author(s). Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

Indexed as

Clinical CompetenceOvarian NeoplasmsAbdomenAgedFemaleHumansMiddle AgedNeoplasm InvasivenessObserver VariationPelvisPrevalenceUltrasonographyVideo Recordingdiagnostic imagingeducationgynecologyinter‐rater agreementovarian cancerreliabilitystagingtrainingultrasoundvideo recordings

Identifiers

PMID40247746
PMCPMC12047678

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.