Abstract:<section class="article-section__content"><h3 class="article-section__sub-title section1"> Objectives</h3><p>To develop and test computerized ultrasound image analysis using deep neural networks (DNNs) to discriminate benign and malignant ovarian tumours, and to compare the diagnostic accuracy with subjective assessment (SA) by ultrasound experts.</p></section><section class="article-section__content"><h3 class="article-section__sub-title section1"> Methods</h3><p>We included 3077 (grayscale n=1927, power Doppler n=1150) ultrasound images from 758 women with ovarian tumours, prospectively classified by expert ultrasound examiners according to IOTA (International Ovarian Tumor Analysis). Histological outcome from surgery (n=634) or long‐time (<span>></span> 3 years) follow‐up (n=124) served as gold standard. The dataset was split into a training set (n=508; 314 benign, 194 malignant), a validation set (n=100; 60 benign, 40 malignant) and a test set (n=150; 75 benign, 75 malignant). We used transfer learning on three pre‐trained DNNs: VGG16, ResNet50 and MobileNet. Each model was trained, and the outputs calibrated using temperature scaling. An ensemble of the three models was then used to estimate the probability of malignancy based on all images from a given case. Using DNNs, tumours were classified as benign or malignant (Ovry‐Dx1); or benign, inconclusive or malignant (Ovry‐Dx2). The DNNs were compared to SA based on sensitivity and specificity on the test set. </p></section><section class="article-section__content"><h3 class="article-section__sub-title section1"> Results</h3><p>At the same sensitivity (96.0%), the specificity of Ovry‐Dx1 (86.7%) and SA (88.0%) were not significantly different, p=1.0. Ovry‐Dx2 had a sensitivity of 97.1% and a specificity of 93.7%, when designating 12.7% of the lesions as inconclusive. By complimenting Ovry‐Dx2 with SA in inconclusive cases, the overall sensitivity (96.0%) and specificity (89.3%) were not significantly different from using SA in all cases, p=1.0.</p></section><section class="article-section__content"><h3 class="article-section__sub-title section1"> Conclusions</h3><p>Ultrasound image analysis using DNNs can predict ovarian malignancy with a diagnostic accuracy comparable to human expert examiners, indicating that these models may have a role in the triage of women with ovarian tumours.</p><p>This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.</p></section>

EP23.61: Ultrasound‐based DML models performance versus expert subjective assessment for discriminating adnexal masses: a head‐to‐head meta‐analysis

EP23.52: LR2 versus expert opinion: a meta‐analysis comparing the performance of methodical assessment to subjective assessment for evaluating adnexal masses

EP23.45: ADNEX versus expert opinion: a meta‐analysis comparing the performance of methodical assessment to subjective assessment for evaluating adnexal masses

OP06.01: Head‐to‐head comparisons of RMI and ADNEX model to diagnose ovarian malignancy: systematic review and meta‐analysis

EP23.25: Simple rules versus expert opinion: a meta‐analysis comparing performance of methodical assessment to subjective assessment for evaluating adnexal masses

OC05.01: *Prospective validation of an end‐to‐end machine learning‐based model for the classification of adnexal masses using ultrasonography

EP23.14: Diagnostic accuracy of adnexal malignancy assessment models ADNEX and simple rules when applied by individuals with no prior clinical experience

OC05.02: External validation of ultrasound‐based prediction models for discrimination between benign and malignant adnexal masses in Italy: IOTA phase 6 study

EP23.24: ADNEX versus simple rules: a meta‐analysis comparing the performance of a quantitative test to a binary test for differentiating adnexal masses

Comparison of ultrasound−based ADNEX model with magnetic resonance imaging for discriminating adnexal masses: a multi-center study

OP06.04: Discrimination of benign and malignant adnexal masses in daily clinical routine: external validation of ADNEX and RMI in Denmark – preliminary results

OP06.06: LR2 versus simple rules: a meta‐analysis comparing the performance of ACOG‐recommended tools for differentiating adnexal masses

Application of Ultrasound Scores (Subjective Assessment, Simple Rules Risk Assessment, ADNEX Model, O-RADS) to Adnexal Masses of Difficult Classification

EP23.19: Diagnostic accuracy of ultrasound scoring systems in differentiating benign versus malignant adnexal masses

Machine learning and radiomics for segmentation and classification of adnexal masses on ultrasound

EP23.37: Ultrasonography experience may not be a reliable indicator for improved accuracy in assessing malignancy in adnexal tumours using the ADNEX model

Ultrasound image analysis using deep neural networks for discriminating between benign and malignant ovarian tumors: comparison with expert subjective assessment

Comparison of the Diagnostic Performances of Ultrasound-Based Models for Predicting Malignancy in Patients with Adnexal Masses

OP06.02: Deep learning radiomics based on contrast‐enhanced ultrasound images for accurate diagnosis of adnexal lesions: a retrospective multicentre study

Clinical Utility and Diagnostic Accuracy of ROMA, RMI, ADNEX, HE4, and CA125 in the Prediction of Malignancy in Adnexal Masses

Comparison of the Diagnostic Performances of the Assessment of Different NEoplasias in the Adnexa Model, Simple Rules Model, and Risk of Malignancy Index for Adnexal Masses in a Gynecological Oncology Centre in China