medigraphic.com
Federación Mexicana de Ginecología y Obstetricia, A.C.

2022, Number 03

<< Back Next >>

Ginecol Obstet Mex 2022; 90 (03)

Comparison of the diagnostic performance of four malignancy risk indices for ovarian cancer

Ibáñez-García MI, Meléndez-González CV, González-Habib R, Castro-Torres I, Pérez-García EI

Language: Spanish
References: 32
Page: 214-221
PDF size: 165.38 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Objective: Compare the diagnostic performance of four malignancy risk indices in predicting ovarian risk at Hospital Christus Muguerza Conchita and Alta Especialidad.
Materials and Methods: Retrospective study including clinical records of patients older than 18 years with adnexal tumor treated at the Christus Muguerza Conchita and Alta Especialidad Hospital from 2016 to 2021. The ROC curve was used to evaluate the diagnostic performance of each index, through the obtaining the best cut-off point with the highest sensitivity and specificity from the Youden index.
Results: A total of 330 patients were included for the adnexal tumor assessment approach. The mean age of the patients was 38.8 years. For IRM1 an S 81.2% and E of 69.3% with a cut-off point at 126; IRM2 the best cut-off point was established at 210, with an S 72.5% and E of 89.3%; IRM3 the best cut-off point was established at 125, with an S 73.9% and E 85.8%; and for IRM4 the cut-off point was 436, with an S 68.1% and E 89.7%.
Conclusions: MRI is an easy, low-cost and accessible method for the discrimination of patients with probable malignant adnexal mass. The use of any of the indices can be recommended in the Mexican population of northeastern Mexico.


REFERENCES

  1. Gibberd R. Globocan 1: Cancer incidence and Mortality Worldwide. Statistics in Medicine 2013; 19 (19): 2714-2715. https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-0258 (20001015)19:19<2714::AID-SIM478>3.0.CO;2-B

  2. Stewart C, Ralyea C, Lockwood S. Ovarian Cancer: An Integrated Review. Seminars in Oncology Nursing 2019; 35 (2): 151-56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soncn.2019.02.001

  3. Gershenson D, Lentz G, Lobo R, Valea F. Comprehensive gynecology. 8th ed. Philadelphia: Elsevier, 2021.

  4. Javdekar R, Maitra N. Risk of Malignancy Index (RMI) in Evaluation of Adnexal Mass. J Obstet Gynecol India 2015; 65 (2). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13224-014-0609-1

  5. Jacobs I, Oram D, Fairbanks J, Turner J, Frost C, Grudzinskas JG. A risk of malignancy index incorporating CA 125, ultrasound and menopausal status for the accurate preoperative diagnosis of ovarian cancer. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 1990; 97 (10): 922-29. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.1990.tb02448.x

  6. Le T, Giede C. No. 230-Initial Evaluation and Referral Guidelines for Management of Pelvic/Ovarian Masses. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Canada 2018; 40 (3): e223-e229. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jogc.2018.01.016

  7. Dochez V, Caillon H, Vaucel E, Dimet J, Winer N, Ducarme G. Biomarkers and algorithms for diagnosis of ovarian cancer: CA125, HE4, RMI and ROMA, a review. J Ovarian Res 2019; 12 (1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13048-019-0503-7

  8. Practice Bulletin No. 174: Evaluation and management of adnexal masses. Obstetrics & Gynecology 2016; 128 (5): e210-e226. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000001768

  9. Akker PV, Aalders A, Snijders M, Kluivers K, Samlal R, Vollebergh J et al. Evaluation of the risk of malignancy index in daily clinical management of adnexal masses. Gynecologic Oncology 2010; 116 (3): 384-88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2009.11.014

  10. Tingulstad S, Hagen B, Skjeldestad F, Onsrud M, Kiserud T, Halvorsen T et al. Evaluation of a risk of malignancy index based on serum CA125, ultrasound findings and menopausal status in the pre-operative diagnosis of pelvic masses. BJOG 1996; 103 (8): 826-31. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0528.1996.tb09882.x

  11. Rooth C. Ovarian cancer: risk factors, treatment and management. British Journal of Nursing 2013; 22 (17): 23-30. doi: 10.12968/bjon.2013.22.Sup17.S23

  12. Yamamoto Y, Yamada R, Oguri H, Maeda N, Fukaya T. Comparison of four malignancy risk indices in the preoperative evaluation of patients with pelvic masses. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reproductive Biology 2009; 144 (2): 163-67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2009.02.048

  13. Yamamoto Y, Tsuchida A, Ushiwaka T, Nagai R, Matsumoto M, Komatsu J et al. Comparison of 4 risk-of-malignancy indexes in the preoperative evaluation of patients with pelvic masses: A prospective study. Clinical Ovarian and Other Gynecologic Cancer 2014; 7 (1-2): 8-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogc.2014.11.001

  14. Manjunath AP, Pratapkumar, Sujatha K, Vani R. Comparison of Three Risk of Malignancy Indices in Evaluation of Pelvic Masses. Gynecologic Oncology. 2001; 81 (2): 225-29. https://doi.org/10.1006/gyno.2001.6122

  15. Akker VP, Aalders AL, Snijders MPLM, Kluivers K, Smalal R, Vollebergh J, Massuger L. Evaluation of the risk of malignancy index in daily clinical management of adnexal masses. Gynecologic Oncology 2010; 116 (3): 384-88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2009.11.014

  16. Ulusoy S, Akbayir O, Numanoglu C, Ulusoy N, Odabas E, et al. The risk of malignancy index in discrimination of adnexal masses. Clinical Practice. Int J Gynecol and Obstetrics 2007; 96: 186-91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgo.2006.10.006

  17. Gibberd R. Globocan 1: Cancer incidence and Mortality Worldwide. Statistics in Medicine 2013; 19 (19): 2714-2715. https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-0258 (20001015)19:19<2714::AID-SIM478>3.0.CO;2-B

  18. Stewart C, Ralyea C, Lockwood S. Ovarian Cancer: An Integrated Review. Seminars in Oncology Nursing 2019; 35 (2): 151-56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soncn.2019.02.001

  19. Gershenson D, Lentz G, Lobo R, Valea F. Comprehensive gynecology. 8th ed. Philadelphia: Elsevier, 2021.

  20. Javdekar R, Maitra N. Risk of Malignancy Index (RMI) in Evaluation of Adnexal Mass. J Obstet Gynecol India 2015; 65 (2). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13224-014-0609-1

  21. Jacobs I, Oram D, Fairbanks J, Turner J, Frost C, Grudzinskas JG. A risk of malignancy index incorporating CA 125, ultrasound and menopausal status for the accurate preoperative diagnosis of ovarian cancer. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 1990; 97 (10): 922-29. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.1990.tb02448.x

  22. Le T, Giede C. No. 230-Initial Evaluation and Referral Guidelines for Management of Pelvic/Ovarian Masses. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Canada 2018; 40 (3): e223-e229. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jogc.2018.01.016

  23. Dochez V, Caillon H, Vaucel E, Dimet J, Winer N, Ducarme G. Biomarkers and algorithms for diagnosis of ovarian cancer: CA125, HE4, RMI and ROMA, a review. J Ovarian Res 2019; 12 (1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13048-019-0503-7

  24. Practice Bulletin No. 174: Evaluation and management of adnexal masses. Obstetrics & Gynecology 2016; 128 (5): e210-e226. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000001768

  25. Akker PV, Aalders A, Snijders M, Kluivers K, Samlal R, Vollebergh J et al. Evaluation of the risk of malignancy index in daily clinical management of adnexal masses. Gynecologic Oncology 2010; 116 (3): 384-88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2009.11.014

  26. Tingulstad S, Hagen B, Skjeldestad F, Onsrud M, Kiserud T, Halvorsen T et al. Evaluation of a risk of malignancy index based on serum CA125, ultrasound findings and menopausal status in the pre-operative diagnosis of pelvic masses. BJOG 1996; 103 (8): 826-31. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0528.1996.tb09882.x

  27. Rooth C. Ovarian cancer: risk factors, treatment and management. British Journal of Nursing 2013; 22 (17): 23-30. doi: 10.12968/bjon.2013.22.Sup17.S23

  28. Yamamoto Y, Yamada R, Oguri H, Maeda N, Fukaya T. Comparison of four malignancy risk indices in the preoperative evaluation of patients with pelvic masses. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reproductive Biology 2009; 144 (2): 163-67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2009.02.048

  29. Yamamoto Y, Tsuchida A, Ushiwaka T, Nagai R, Matsumoto M, Komatsu J et al. Comparison of 4 risk-of-malignancy indexes in the preoperative evaluation of patients with pelvic masses: A prospective study. Clinical Ovarian and Other Gynecologic Cancer 2014; 7 (1-2): 8-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogc.2014.11.001

  30. Manjunath AP, Pratapkumar, Sujatha K, Vani R. Comparison of Three Risk of Malignancy Indices in Evaluation of Pelvic Masses. Gynecologic Oncology. 2001; 81 (2): 225-29. https://doi.org/10.1006/gyno.2001.6122

  31. Akker VP, Aalders AL, Snijders MPLM, Kluivers K, Smalal R, Vollebergh J, Massuger L. Evaluation of the risk of malignancy index in daily clinical management of adnexal masses. Gynecologic Oncology 2010; 116 (3): 384-88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2009.11.014

  32. Ulusoy S, Akbayir O, Numanoglu C, Ulusoy N, Odabas E, et al. The risk of malignancy index in discrimination of adnexal masses. Clinical Practice. Int J Gynecol and Obstetrics 2007; 96: 186-91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgo.2006.10.006




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com