A nomogram for estimating the probability of ovarian cancer

Gynecologic Oncology

Volumn 121, Issue 1, 2011, Pages 2-7

  Lachance, Jason A ^a,c   Choudhri, Asim F ^a,d   Sarti, Marc ^a   Modesitt, Susan C ^a   Jazaeri, Amir A ^a   Stukenborg, George J ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA HEALTH SYSTEM   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA   (United States)

^c Maine Medical Partners   (United States)

^d JOHNS HOPKINS HOSPITAL   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CA 125 ANTIGEN;

AGE; ARTICLE; BLOOD LEVEL; CA 125 ANTIGEN BLOOD LEVEL; CANCER INVASION; CANCER RISK; CONTROLLED STUDY; CYSTADENOMA; DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM; ENDOMETRIUM TUMOR; FEMALE; FIBROMA; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MULTIVARIATE LOGISTIC REGRESSION ANALYSIS; NOMOGRAM; OVARIECTOMY; OVARY CANCER; PREDICTION; PREDICTIVE VALUE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROBABILITY; RECEIVER OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; STATISTICAL MODEL; TERATOMA; TRANSVAGINAL ECHOGRAPHY;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGE FACTORS; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; CA-125 ANTIGEN; CHILD; FEMALE; HUMANS; LOGISTIC MODELS; MEMBRANE PROTEINS; MIDDLE AGED; NOMOGRAMS; OVARIAN NEOPLASMS; OVARIECTOMY; PROBABILITY; REGISTRIES; VIRGINIA; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 79952816944     PISSN: 00908258     EISSN: 10956859     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2010.12.365     Document Type: Article

References (44)

1. Bristow RE, Zahurak ML, Diaz-Montes TP, Giuntoli RL, Armstrong DK. Impact of surgeon and hospital ovarian cancer surgical case volume on in-hospital mortality and related short-term outcomes. Gynecol Oncol 2009;115(3):334-8.
2. Partridge E, Kreimer AR, Greenlee RT, Williams C, Xu J, Church T, et al. Results from four rounds of ovarian cancer screening in a randomized trial. Obstet Gynecol April 2009;113(4):775-82.
3. Timmerman D. The use of mathematical models to evaluate pelvic masses; can they beat an expert operator? Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 2004;18(1):91-104.
4. Geomini P, Kruitwagen R, Bremer G, Cnossen J, Mol B. The accuracy of risk scores in predicting ovarian malignancy: a systematic review. Obstet Gynecol 2009;113(2):384-94.
5. Jacobs I, Oram D, Fairbanks J, Turner J, Frost C, Grudzinskas J. 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 & Gynaecology 1990;97(10):922-9. (Pubitemid 20340625)
6. 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: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology 1996;103(8):826-31. (Pubitemid 26291762)
7. 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 Reprod Biol 2009;144(2):163-7.
8. Andersen ES, Knudsen A, Rix P, Johansen B. Risk of malignancy index in the preoperative evaluation of patientswith adnexalmasses. Gynecol Oncol 2003;90(1):109-12. (Pubitemid 37338084)
9. Manjunath AP, Pratapkumar, Sujatha K, Vani R. Comparison of three risk of malignancy indices in evaluation of pelvic masses. Gynecol Oncol 2001;81(2):225-9. (Pubitemid 32424165)
10. Morgante G, Marca A, Ditto A, Leo V. Comparison of two malignancy risk indices based on serum CA125, ultrasound score and menopausal status in the diagnosis of ovarian masses. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology 1999;106(6):524-7. (Pubitemid 29245581)
11. Ulusoy S, Akbayir O, Numanoglu C, Ulusoy N, Odabas E, Gulkilik A. The risk of malignancy index in discrimination of adnexal masses. Int J Gynecol Obstet 2007;96(3):186-91. (Pubitemid 46281908)
12. DePriest PD, DeSimone CP. Ultrasound screening for the early detection of ovarian cancer. J Clin Oncol 2003 May 15;21(10S):194s-9s.
13. DePriest PD, Varner E, Powell J, Fried A, Puls L, Higgins R, et al. The efficacy of a sonographic morphology index in identifying ovarian cancer: a multi-institutional investigation. Gynecol Oncol 1994;55(2):174-8.
14. Harrell F, Lee K, Pollock B. Regression models in clinical studies: determining relationships between predictors and response. J Natl Cancer Inst 1988 October 5;80(15):1198-202.
15. Hanley JA, McNeil BJ. The meaning and use of the area under a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. Radiology 1982 Apr;143(1):29-36. (Pubitemid 12142173)
16. Harrell Jr FE, Califf RM, Pryor DB, Lee KL, Rosati RA. Evaluating the yield of medical tests. Jama 1982 May 14;247(18):2543-6. (Pubitemid 12155954)
17. Ash A, Shwartz M. R2: a useful measure of model performance when predicting a dichotomous outcome. Stat Med 1999 Feb 28;18(4):375-84.
18. Cox DR, Wermuth N. A comment on the coefficient of determination for binary responses. Am Stat 1992;46:1-4.
19. Nagelkerke NJD. A note on a general definition of the coefficient of multiple determination. Biometrika 1991;78:691-2.
20. Freedman AN, Seminara D, Gail MH, Hartge P, Colditz GA, Ballard-Barbash R, et al. Cancer risk prediction models: a workshop on development, evaluation, and application. J Natl Cancer Inst 2005 May 18;97(10):715-23. (Pubitemid 40872378)
21. Harrell F, Lee K, Mark D. Multivariable prognostic models: issues in developing models, evaluating assumptions and adequacy, and measuring and reducing errors. Stat Med 1996;15(4):361-87. (Pubitemid 26072233)
22. Michael EM, Siu LH, William MT. Validation techniques for logistic regression models. Stat Med 1991;10(8):1213-26.
23. Ewout WS, Marinus JCE, Frank Jr EH, Habbema JDF. Prognostic modelling with logistic regression analysis: a comparison of selection and estimation methods in small data sets. Stat Med 2000;19(8):1059-79. (Pubitemid 30238915)
24. Douglas GA, Patrick R. What do we mean by validating a prognostic model? Stat Med 2000;19(4):453-73.
25. Tailor A, Jurkovic D, Bourne TH, Collins WP SC. Sonographic prediction of malignancy in adnexal masses using multivariate logistic regression analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1997;10(1):41-7. (Pubitemid 27375937)
26. Timmerman D, Bourne TH, Tailor A, Collins WP, Verrelst H, Vandenberghe K, et al. A comparison of methods for preoperative discrimination between malignant and benign adnexal masses: the development of a new logistic regression model. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1999;181(1):57-65. (Pubitemid 29343331)
27. Tailor A, Jurkovic D, Bourne TH, Collins WP SC. Sonographic prediction of malignancy in adnexal masses using an artificial neural network. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology 1999;106(1):21-30. (Pubitemid 29041971)
28. Valentin L, Hagen B, Tingulstad S, Eik-Nes S. Comparison of pattern recognition and logistic regression models for discrimination between benign and malignant pelvic masses: a prospective cross validation. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2001;18(4):357-65. (Pubitemid 32947204)
29. Timmerman D, Testa AC, Bourne T, Ferrazzi E, Ameye L, Konstantinovic ML, et al. Logistic regression model to distinguish between the benign and malignant adnexal mass before surgery: a multicenter study by the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis Group. J Clin Oncol 2005 December 1;23(34):8794-801. (Pubitemid 46211525)
30. Timmerman D, Valentin L, Bourne TH, Collins WP, Verrelst H, Vergote I. Terms, definitions and measurements to describe the sonographic features of adnexal tumors: a consensus opinion from the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis (IOTA) Group. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2000;16(5):500-5. (Pubitemid 32158133)
31. Sladkevicius P, Valentin L. Interobserver agreement in the results of Doppler examinations of extrauterine pelvic tumors. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1995;6(2):91-6.
32. Timmerman D, Schwärzler P, Collins WP, Claerhout F, Coenen M, Amant F, et al. Subjective assessment of adnexal masses with the use of ultrasonography: an analysis of interobserver variability and experience. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1999;13(1):11-6. (Pubitemid 29097172)
33. Valentin L, Ameye L, Jurkovic D, Metzger U, Lécuru F, Huffel SV, et al. Which extrauterine pelvic masses are difficult to correctly classify as benign or malignant on the basis of ultrasound findings and is there a way of making a correct diagnosis? Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2006;27(4):438-44.
34. Van Holsbeke C, Van Calster B, Valentin L, Testa AC, Ferrazzi E, Dimou I, et al. External validation of mathematical models to distinguish between benign and malignant adnexal tumors: a multicenter study by the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis Group. Clin Cancer Res 2007 August 1;13(15):4440-7. (Pubitemid 47219712)
35. Iasonos A, Schrag D, Raj G, Panageas K. How to build and interpret a nomogram for cancer prognosis. J Clin Oncol 2008 March 10;26(8):1364-70.
36. Kattan MW, Eastham JA, Wheeler TM, Maru N, Scardino PT, Erbersdobler A, et al. Counseling men with prostate cancer: a nomogram for predicting the presence of small, moderately differentiated, confined tumors. J Urol 2003;170(5):1792-7. (Pubitemid 37254930)
37. Stijn R, Monique JR, Michael WK, Theo HvdK, Ewout WS, Fritz HS. Nomogram use for the prediction of indolent prostate cancer. Cancer 2007;110(10):2218-21.
38. Gur AS, Unal B, Johnson R, Ahrendt G, Bonaventura M, Gordon P, et al. Predictive probability of four different breast cancer nomograms for nonsentinel axillary lymph node metastasis in positive sentinel node biopsy. J Am Coll Surg 2009;208(2):229-35.
39. Shariat SF, Margulis V, Lotan Y, Montorsi F, Karakiewicz PI. Nomograms for bladder cancer. Eur Urol 2008;54(1):41-53.
40. Karakiewicz PI, Shariat SF, Palapattu GS, Perrotte P, Lotan Y, Rogers CG, et al. Precystectomy nomogram for prediction of advanced bladder cancer stage. Eur Urol 2006;50(6):1254-62. (Pubitemid 44692930)
41. Raj GV, Bach AM, Iasonos A, Korets R, Blitstein J, Hann L, et al. Predicting the histology of renal masses using preoperative Doppler ultrasonography. J Urol 2007;177(1):53-8. (Pubitemid 44879469)
42. Twickler D, Moschos E. Ultrasound and assessment of ovarian cancer risk. Am J Roentgenol 2010 February 1;194(2):322-9.
43. Modugno F. Ovarian cancer and high-risk women - implications for prevention, screening, and early detection. Gynecol Oncol 2003;91(1):15-31. (Pubitemid 37203405)
44. Anderson GL, McIntosh M, Wu L, Barnett M, Goodman G, Thorpe JD, et al. Assessing lead time of selected ovarian cancer biomarkers: a nested case-control study. J Natl Cancer Inst January 6, 2010;102(1):26-38.