Meléndez-González CV, Saldaña-Solórzano CF, Machorro-García EG, González-Habib R

Language: Spanish
References: 10
Page: 277-287
PDF size: 403.44 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Objective: To determine the correlation between the risk of malignancy index Jacobs II and anatomopathological result in ovarian tumors.
Materials and Methods: Observational, retrospective, prospective, analytical and transversal study of patients with a diagnosis of ovarian tumor with tumor marker of Ca 125 and the result of pathology admitted to the Christus Muguerza Conchita Hospital in Nuevo León during a 2-year period (2016-2018). Risk of malignancy index Jacobs II was calculated: IRM = U x M x Ca 125. Two groups were divided according to the results of histopathology (benign and malignant). For variables of central tendency, were compared with Student’s t-test adjusted to two-tailed normality (P ‹0.05). For categorical sampling, compared with the 2-tailed Fisher’s test to describe the differences between the groups or distribution χ² (P ‹0.05). The sample was studied to observe risk / benefit factors (AUROC) as well as determination of the odds ratio, relative risk, sensitivity, specificity and creation of the logistic regression model of the indicators of interest.
Results:It was found that patients with a Jacobs II malignancy index higher than 155.22 (AUROC 0.95) were more likely to have a malignant lesion due to pathology with 88% sensitivity and 91% specificity.
Conclusion: There is a correlation between the risk index for malignancy of Jacobs II and the anatomopathological result in ovarian tumors.

REFERENCES

1. Arteaga AC, et al. Cáncer de ovario: diagnóstico y tratamiento. Ginecol Obstet Mex. 2010;78(4):415-35.

2. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. The Role of the Obstetrician-Gynecologist in the Early Detection of Epithelial Ovarian Cancer in Women at Average Risk. AGOC Committee Opinion. 2017;716(1): 1-4. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000002299.

3. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Management of Adnexal Masses. AGOC Practice Bulletin, 2015; 83(2): 1-10. doi: 10.1097/01.AOG.0000263913.92942.40

4. Novoa-Vargas A. Historia natural del cáncer de ovario. Ginecol Obstet Mex 2014;82:613-22.

5. Preisler J. Validación de criterios ecográficos IOTA (International Ovarian Tumor Analysis Group) para caracterizar masas anexiales y determinar riesgo de malignidad en un grupo de mujeres con sospecha de cáncer de ovario. Rev Hosp Clín Univ Chile 2017;28:44-49. https://www.redclinica. cl/Portals/0/Users/014/14/14/1109.pdf

6. Schorge J, y col. Williams Ginecología . 2a ed. Mexico: McGrawHill, 2008.

7. Treviño JD, Cantú JA, Medina J, y col. Exactitud diagnóstica del índice de riesgo de malignidad II en mujeres posmeno páusicas con tumor anexial. Cir Cir. 2016;84(2): 109-114. doi: 10.1016/j.circir.2015.10.007

8. Tien L, et al. Initial evaluation and referral guidelines for management of pelvic-ovarian masses. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2009;31(7): 668-73.

9. Montalvo V y col. Abordaje diagnóstico y referencia del tumor pélvico con sospecha de malignidad. Catálogo maestro de guías de práctica clínica: IMSS-511-11. http://www.alabmed. com/uploadfile/2014/0126/20140126024320145. pdf

10. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. The role of the obstetrician-gynecologist in the early detection of epithelial ovarian cancer in women at average risk. AGOC Committee Opinion. 2011;716(1): 1-5. doi: 10.1097/ AOG.000000000002289.