Santiago MMI, Marín RO, Hinojosa CJC, Vital RVS

Language: Spanish
References: 9
Page: 101-105
PDF size: 68.30 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Background: Adnexal masses are a frequent cause of gynecological consultation. The diagnostic protocols are based on ultrasonography findings and often on the determination of tumor markers, but the utility of these diagnostic tools is not clear.
Objective: To evaluate the usefulness of tumor markers in infertile patients with diagnosis of adnexal mass.
Patients and method: We performed a retrospective observational study that included infertile patients with diagnosis of adnexal masses. As part of diagnostic study a pelvic ultrasound and tumor markers determination were done. Description of the data was carried out through measures of central tendency and dispersion. The inferential analysis was performed using Spearman correlation.
Results: We studied 87 patients with an age range of 12 to 39 years. Of them, 73.5% had a diagnostic of infertility, and 5.7% had a family history of ovarian or colon cancer. The CA-125 was above normal limits in 27% of the patients. Ultrasound was inconclusive in 40% of women. Endometrioma was the tumor more frequently found in the surgical evaluation (38%) and in the histopathological report (26%).
Conclusions: We found a non statistically significant correlation between the ultrasound, surgical and histological findings compared with serum concentrations of the different tumor markers studied.

REFERENCES

1. Killackey MA, Neuwirth, RS. Evaluation and management of the pelvic mass: A review of 540 cases. Obstet Gynecol 1988;71:319.

2. Myers ER, Bastian LA, Havrilesky LJ, Kulasingam SL, et al. Management of adnexal mass. Evidence Report/Technology Assessment No. 130 (Prepared by the Duke Evidencebased Practice Center under Contract No. 290-02-0025.) AHRQ Publication No. 06-E004. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. February 2006.

3. Guerriero S, Alcazar JL, Coccia ME, Ajossa S, et al. Complex pelvic mass as a target of evaluation of vessel distribution by color Doppler sonography for the diagnosis of adnexal malignancies: results of a multicenter European study. J Ultrasound Med 2002;21:1105.

4. ACOG Committee Opinion: number 280, December 2002. The role of the generalist obstetrician-gynecologist in the early detection of ovarian cancer. Obstet Gynecol 2002;100:1413.

5. Timmerman D, Van Calster B, Jurkovic D, Valentin L, et al. Inclusion of CA-125 does not improve mathematical models developed to distinguish between benign and malignant adnexal tumors. J Clin Oncology 2007;25:4194-4200.

6. Berman M, Randall-Whits L. ACOG Practice bulletin: Management of adnexal masses. Obstet Gynecol 2007;110(83):201-214.

7. Juretzka MM, Crawford CL, Lee C, Wilton A, et al. Laparoscopic findings during adnexal surgery in women with a history of nongynecologic malignancy. Gynecol Oncol 2006;101:327.

8. Im SS, Gordon AN, Buttin BM, Leath CA 3rd, et al. Validation of referral guidelines for women with pelvic masses. Obstet Gynecol 2005;105:35.

9. Ueland F, Zhang Z, Crutcher G, Fung E. A biomarker panel for distinguishing between malignant and benign ovarian tumors (abstract). Gynecol Oncol 2009;112:S98.