Comparison of four malignancy risk indices in the detection of malignant ovarian masses

Journal of Gynecologic Oncology

Volumn 22, Issue 3, 2011, Pages 177-182

  Aktürk, Erhan ^a   Karaca, Riza Efendi ^a   Alanbay, Ibrahim ^a   Dede, Murat ^a   Karaşahin, Emre ^a   Yenen, Müfit Cemal ^a   Başer, Iskender ^a  

^a GULHANE SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (Turkey)

Author keywords

Ovarian cancer; Pelvic mass; Risk of malignancy index

Indexed keywords

CA 125 ANTIGEN;

ADULT; ARTICLE; CANCER DIAGNOSIS; CANCER RISK; COMPARATIVE STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; FEMALE; HISTOPATHOLOGY; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; OVARY CANCER; PELVIS TUMOR; PREDICTIVE VALUE; RISK OF MALIGNANCY INDEX; SCORING SYSTEM; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; TUMOR DIFFERENTIATION;

EID: 80053010924     PISSN: 20050380     EISSN: 20050399     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3802/jgo.2011.22.3.177     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Gillis CR, Hole DJ, Still RM, Davis J, Kaye SB. Medical audit, cancer registration, and survival in ovarian cancer. Lancet 1991;337:611-2.
2. Finkler NJ, Benacerraf B, Lavin PT, Wojciechowski C, Knapp RC. Comparison of serum CA-125, clinical impression, and ultrasound in the preoperative evaluation of ovarian masses. Obstet Gynecol 1988;72:659-64.
3. Vasilev SA, Schlaerth JB, Campeau J, Morrow CP. Serum CA-125 levels in preoperative evaluation of pelvic masses. Obstet Gynecol 1988;71:751-6.
4. Eisenkop SM, Spirtos NM, Montag TW, Nalick RH, Wang HJ. The impact of subspecialty training on the management of advanced ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol 1992;47:203-9.
5. Kehoe S, Powell J, Wilson S, Woodman C. The influence of the operating surgeon's specialisation on patient survival in ovarian carcinoma. Br J Cancer 1994;70:1014-7.
6. Manjunath AP, Desai MR, Desai PD, Modi DA. Value of sonography in evaluation of gynecologic pelvic masses. J Obstet Gynecol India 1999;49:60-4.
7. Sassone AM, Timor-Tritsch IE, Artner A, Westhoff C, Warren WB. Transvaginal sonographic characterization of ovarian disease: evaluation of a new scoring system to predict ovarian malignancy. Obstet Gynecol 1991;78:70-6.
8. Wu CC, Lee CN, Chen TM, Lai JI, Hsieh CY, Hsieh FJ. Factors contributing to the accuracy in diagnosing ovarian malignancy by color Doppler ultrasound. Obstet Gynecol 1994;84:605-8.
9. Predanic M, Vlahos N, Pennisi JA, Moukhtar M, Aleem FA. Color and pulsed Doppler sonography, gray-scale imaging, and serum CA-125 in the assessment of adnexal disease. Obstet Gynecol 1996;88:283-8.
10. Weiner Z, Thaler I, Beck D, Rottem S, Deutsch M, Brandes JM. Differentiating malignant from benign ovarian tumors with transvaginal color flow imaging. Obstet Gynecol 1992;79:159-62.
11. Anandakumar C, Chew S, Wong YC, Chia D, Ratnam SS. Role of transvaginal ultrasound color flow imaging and Doppler waveform analysis in differentiating between benign and malignant ovarian tumors. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1996;7:280-4.
12. Osmers R. Sonographic evaluation of ovarian masses and its therapeutical implications. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1996;8:217-22.
13. Einhorn N, Bast RC Jr, Knapp RC, Tjernberg B, Zurawski VR Jr. Preoperative evaluation of serum CA-125 levels in patients with primary epithelial ovarian cancer. Obstet Gynecol 1986;67:414-6.
14. Chen DX, Schwartz PE, Li XG, Yang Z. Evaluation of CA-125 levels in differentiating malignant from benign tumors in patients with pelvic masses. Obstet Gynecol 1988;72:23-7.
15. Vasilev SA, Schlaerth JB, Campeau J, Morrow CP. Serum CA-125 levels in preoperative evaluation of pelvic masses. Obstet Gynecol 1988;71:751-6.
16. Jacobs IJ, Rivera H, Oram DH, Bast RC Jr. Differential diagnosis of ovarian cancer with tumour markers CA-125, CA 15-3 and TAG 72.3. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1993;100:1120-4.
17. Twickler DM, Forte TB, Santos-Ramos R, McIntire D, Harris P, Scott D. The Ovarian Tumor Index predicts risk for malignancy. Cancer 1999;86:2280-90.
18. 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. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1990;97:922-9.
19. Tingulstad S, Hagen B, Skjeldestad FE, Onsrud M, Kiserud T, Halvorsen T, et al. Evaluation of a risk of malignancy index based on serum CA-125, ultrasound findings and menopausal status in the pre-operative diagnosis of pelvic masses. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1996;103:826-31.
20. Tingulstad S, Hagen B, Skjeldestad FE, Halvorsen T, Nustad K, Onsrud M. The risk-of-malignancy index to evaluate potential ovarian cancers in local hospitals. Obstet Gynecol 1999;93:448-52.
21. Staging announcement: FIGO cancer committee. Gynecol Oncol 1986;25:383-5.
22. Davies AP, Jacobs I, Woolas R, Fish A, Oram D. The adnexal mass: benign or malignant? Evaluation of a risk of malignancy index. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1993;100:927-31.
23. Morgante G, la Marca A, Ditto A, De Leo V. Comparison of two malignancy risk indices based on serum CA-125, ultrasound score and menopausal status in the diagnosis of ovarian masses. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1999;106:524-7.
24. 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;144:163-7.
25. Manjunath AP, Pratapkumar, Sujatha K, Vani R. Comparison of three risk of malignancy indices in evaluation of pelvic masses. Gynecol Oncol 2001;81:225-9.
26. Clarke SE, Grimshaw R, Rittenberg P, Kieser K, Bentley J. Risk of malignancy index in the evaluation of patients with adnexal masses. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2009;31:440-5.