Application values of four risk of malignancy indices in the preoperative evaluation of patients with adnexal masses

Acta Academiae Medicinae Sinicae

Volumn 32, Issue 3, 2010, Pages 297-302

  Lou, Hai Ya ^a   Meng, Hua ^a   Zhu, Qing Li ^a   Zhang, Qing ^a   Jiang, Yu Xin ^a  

^a PEKING UNION MEDICAL COLLEGE HOSPITAL   (China)

Author keywords

Adnexal mass; Preoperative evaluation; Risk of malignancy index

Indexed keywords

ADNEXA DISEASE; ARTICLE; CANCER RISK; ENDOMETRIOSIS; FEMALE; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; OVARY CANCER; PELVIC DISEASE; PELVIS; PREOPERATIVE EVALUATION; RECEIVER OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; RISK OF MALIGNANCY INDEX; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SEX CORD TUMOR; STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE; YOUDEN INDEX;

ADNEXAL DISEASES; ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; CA-125 ANTIGEN; FEMALE; HUMANS; MENOPAUSE; MIDDLE AGED; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; RISK ASSESSMENT; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 77954718635     PISSN: 1000503X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3881/j.issn.1000-503X.2010.03.013     Document Type: Article

References (12)

1. Yamamoto Y, Yamada R, Oguri H, et al. Comparison of four malignancy risk indices in the preoperative patients with pelvic masses [J]. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol, 2009, 144(2):163-167.
2. Bailey J, Tailor A, Naik R, et al. Risk of malignancy index for referral of ovarian cancer cases to a tertiary center: does it identify the correct cases [J]. Int J Gynecol Cancer, 2006, 16(Suppl 1):30-34.
3. Valentin L, Hagen B, Tingulstad S, et al. Comparison of ' pattern recognition' and logistic regression models for discrimination between benign and malignant pelvic masses; a prospective cross validation [J]. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol, 2001, 18(4):357-365.
4. Timmerman D. The use of mathematical models to evaluate pelvic masses; can they beat an expert operator [J]. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol, 2004, 18(1):91-104. (Pubitemid 38324638)
5. Yazbek J, Raju SK, Ben-Nagi J, et al. Effect of quality of gynaecological ultrasonography on management of patients with suspected ovarian cancer: a randomised controlled trial [J]. Lancet Oncol, 2008, 9(2):124-131.
6. Timmerman D, Schwärzler P, Collins WP, et al. Subjective assessment of adnexal masses with the use of ultrasonography: an analysis of interobserver variability and experience [J]. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol, 1999, 13(1):11-16. (Pubitemid 29097172)
7. Geomini P, Kruitwagen R, Bremer GL, et al. The accuracy of risk scores in predicting ovarian malignancy: a systematic review [J]. Obstet Gynecol, 2009, 113(2Pt1):384-394.
8. Enakpene CA, Omigbodun AO, Goecke TW, et al Preoperative evaluation and triage of women with suspicious adnexal masses using risk of malignancy index [J]. J Obstet Gynaecol Res, 2009, 35(1):131-138.
9. Ulusoy S, Akbayir O, Numanoglu C, et al. The risk of malignancy index in discrimination of adnexal masses [J]. Int J Gynaecol Obstet, 2007, 96(3):186-191. (Pubitemid 46281908)
10. van Trappen PV, Rufford BD, Mills TD, et al. Differential diagnosis of adnexal masses risk of malignancy index, ultrasonography, magnetic resonance imaging, and radioimmunoscintigraphy [J]. Int J Gynecol Cancer, 2007, 17(1):61-67.