Preoperative identification of a suspicious adnexal mass: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Gynecologic Oncology

Volumn 126, Issue 1, 2012, Pages 157-166

  Dodge, Jason E ^a   Covens, Allan L ^b   Lacchetti, Christina ^c   Elit, Laurie M ^c   Le, Tien ^d   Devries Aboud, Michaela ^e   Fung Kee Fung, Michael ^d,f  

^a PRINCESS MARGARET HOSPITAL   (Canada)

^b DEPARTMENT OF RADIATION ONCOLOGY   (Canada)

^c MCMASTER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^d UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA   (Canada)

^e Guelph Family Health Team   (Canada)

^f CANCER CARE ONTARIO   (Canada)

Author keywords

Adenxal mass; Diagnosis; Ovarian cancer; Sensitivity; Specificity

Indexed keywords

CA 125 ANTIGEN;

ADNEXA DISEASE; BIVARIATE ANALYSIS; CANCER STAGING; COLOR ULTRASOUND FLOWMETRY; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; DOPPLER ECHOGRAPHY; EARLY CANCER; HUMAN; MEDLINE; META ANALYSIS; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; OVARY CANCER; POSITRON EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; PREOPERATIVE EVALUATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RECEIVER OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC; REVIEW; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW;

ADNEXAL DISEASES; FEMALE; HUMANS; OVARIAN NEOPLASMS; PREOPERATIVE CARE;

EID: 84862753746     PISSN: 00908258     EISSN: 10956859     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2012.03.048     Document Type: Review

References (113)

1. Canadian Cancer Society's Steering Committee. Canadian Cancer Statistics 2011 Toronto. Canadian Cancer Society; 2011.
2. Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN). Epithelial ovarian cancer, a national clinical guideline. Edinburgh (Scotland: SIGN; Oct 2003. Contract No.: 75.
3. Myers E, Bastian L, Havrilesky L, Kulasingam S, Terplan M, Cline K, et al. Management of Adnexal Mass. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Contract No.: Evidence Report/Technology Assessment No.: 130. AHRQ Publication No.: 06-E004. Contract No.: 290-02-0025; Feb 2006.
4. Browman G, Levine M, Mohide E, Hayward R, Pritchard K, Gafni A. The practice guidelines development cycle: a conceptual tool for practice guidelines development and implementation. J Clin Oncol 1995;13:502-12.
5. van Houwelingen H, Arends LR, Stijnen T. Advanced methods in meta-analysis: multivariate approach and meta-regression. Stat Med 2002;21(4):589-624. (Pubitemid 34141379)
6. Reitsma JB, Glas AS, Rutjes AWS, Scholten RJPM, Bossuyt PM, AH Z. Bivariate analysis of sensitivity and specificity produces information summary measures in diagnostic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol 2005;58:982-90. (Pubitemid 41316441)
7. Arends LR, Hamza TH, van Houwelingen JC, Heijenbrok-Kal MH, Hunink MGM, Stijnen T. Bivariate random effects meta-analysis of ROC curves. Med Decis Making 2008;28:621-38.
8. Dinnes J, Deeks J, Kirby J, P.R. A methodological review of how heterogeneity has been examined in systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy. Health Technol Assess 2005;9(12):1-113.
9. Statacorp. Stata Statistical Software: Release 11. College Station. TX: StataCorp LP; 2009.
10. Shea B, Grimshaw JM,Wells GA, Boers M, Andersson N, Hamel C, et al. Development of AMSTAR: ameasurement tool to assess themethodological quality of systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol 2007;7:10.
11. Geomini P, Bremer G, Kruitwagen R, Mol BWJ. Diagnostic accuracy of frozen section diagnosis of the adnexal mass: a metaanalysis. Gynecol Oncol 2005;96(1):1-9. (Pubitemid 39612409)
12. Liu J, Xu Y, Wang J. Ultrasonography, computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging for diagnosis of ovarian carcinoma. Eur J Radiol 2007;62(3):328-34. (Pubitemid 46783368)
13. Geomini P, Kruitwagen R, Bremer GL, Cnossen J, Mol BWJ. The accuracy of risk scores in predicting ovarian malignancy: a systematic review. Obstet Gynecol 2009;113(2 Pt 1):384-94.
14. Medeiros L, Rosa D, EdelweissM, Stein A, BozzettiM, Zelmanowicz A, et al. Accuracy of frozen-section analysis in the diagnosis of ovarian tumours: a systematic review. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2005;15:192-202. (Pubitemid 40396952)
15. Bossuyt P.M., Leeflang M.M. Developing Criteria for Including Studies. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Diagnostic Test Accuracy [updated 2008 Sep]. Version 0.4, ed: The Cochrane Collaboration; 2008.
16. Geomini P, Kluivers K, Moret E, Bremer GL, Kruitwagen R, Mol B. Evaluation of adnexal masses with three-dimensional ultrasonography. Obstet Gynecol 2006;108(5):1167-75. (Pubitemid 44665412)
17. Laban M, Metawee H, Elyan A, Kamal M, Kamel M, Mansour G. Three-dimensional ultrasound and three-dimensional power Doppler in the assessment of ovarian tumors. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2007;99(3):201-5. (Pubitemid 350007580)
18. Sassone AM, Timor-Tritsch IE, Artner A,Westhoff C,WarrenWB. Transvaginal sonographic characterization of ovarian disease: evaluation of a new scoring system to predict ovarian malignancy. Obstet Gynecol 1991;78(1):70-6 Epub 1991/07/01.
19. Alcazar JL, Merce LT, Laparte C, Jurado M, Lopez-Garcia G. A new scoring system to differentiate benign from malignant adnexal masses. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2003;188(3):685-92 Epub 2003/03/14.
20. Schneider VL, Schneider A, Reed KL, Hatch KD. Comparison of Doppler with two-dimensional sonography and CA 125 for prediction of malignancy of pelvic masses. Obstet Gynecol 1993;81(6):983-8 Epub 1993/06/01.
21. Buckshee K, Temsu I, Bhatla N, Deka D. Pelvic examination, transvaginal ultrasound and transvaginal color Doppler sonography as predictors of ovarian cancer. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 1998;61(1):51-7 Epub 1998/06/11.
22. Ferrazzi E, Zanetta G, Dordoni D, Berlanda N,Mezzopane R, Lissoni AA. Transvaginal ultrasonographic characterization of ovarian masses: comparison of five scoring systems in a multicenter study. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1997;10(3):192-7 Epub 1997/10/27.
23. Rehn M, Lohmann K, Rempen A. Transvaginal ultrasonography of pelvic masses: evaluation of B-mode technique and Doppler ultrasonography. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1996;175(1):97-104 Epub 1996/07/01.
24. Alcazar JL, Lopez-Garcia G. Transvaginal color Doppler assessment of venous flow in adnexal masses. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2001;17(5):434-8 Epub 2001/06/02.
25. Alcazar JL, Ruiz-Perez ML, T E. Transvaginal color Doppler sonography in adnexal masses: which parameter performs best? Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1996;8(2):114-9. (Pubitemid 126720506)
26. Tempe A, Singh S,Wadhwa L, Garg A. Conventional and color Doppler sonography in preoperative assessment of ovarian tumors. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2006;92(1):64-8. (Pubitemid 41773719)
27. Topuz S, Saygili H, Akhan S, Yavuz E, Turfanda A, Berkman S. Differentiation of benign and malignant adnexal masses: value of a morphologic scoring system. Eur J Gynaecol Oncol 2005;26(2):209-12. (Pubitemid 40546535)
28. Leeners B, Schild RL, Funk A, Hauptmann S, Kemp B, Schroder W, et al. Colour Doppler sonography improves the pre-operative diagnosis of ovarian tumours made using conventional transvaginal sonography. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 1996;64(1):79-85 Epub 1996/01/01.
29. Timor-Tritsch LE, Lerner JP, Monteagudo A, Santos R. Transvaginal ultrasonographic characterization of ovarian masses by means of color flow-directed Doppler measurements and a morphologic scoring system. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1993;168(3 Pt 1):909-13 Epub 1993/03/01.
30. Mol BW, Boll D, De Kanter M, Heintz AP, Sijmons EA, Oei SG, et al. Distinguishing the benign and malignant adnexal mass: an external validation of prognostic models. Gynecol Oncol 2001;80(2):162-7 Epub 2001/02/13.
31. Alcázar JL, Errasti T, Laparte C, Jurado M, G L-G. Assessment of a new logistic model in the preoperative evaluation of adnexal masses. J Ultrasound Med 2001;20(8):841-8. (Pubitemid 32708995)
32. Szpurek D, Moszynski R, Zietkowiak W, Spaczynski M, Sajdak S. An ultrasonographic morphological index for prediction of ovarian tumor malignancy. Eur J Gynaecol Oncol 2005;26(1):51-4 Epub 2005/03/10.
33. Hata T, Yanagihara T, Hayashi K, Yamashiro C, Ohnishi Y, Akiyama M, et al. Three-dimensional ultrasonographic evaluation of ovarian tumours: a preliminary study. Hum Reprod 1999;14(3):858-61. (Pubitemid 29131279)
34. Botta G, Zarcone R. Trans-vaginal ultrasound examination of ovarian masses in premenopausal women. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 1995;62(1):37-41.
35. Lerner JP, Timor-Tritsch IE, Federman A, Abramovich G. Transvaginal ultrasonographic characterization of ovarian masses with an improved, weighted scoring system. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1994;170(1 Pt 1):81-5 Epub 1994/01/01.
36. Lee TS, Kim JW, Park NH, Song YS, Kang SB, Lee HP. Assessing clinical performance of gynecology residents: sonographic evaluation of adnexal masses based on morphological scoring systems. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2005;26(7):776-9. (Pubitemid 41810142)
37. DePriest PD, Shenson D, Fried A, Hunter JE, Andrews SJ, Gallion HH, et al. A morphology index based on sonographic findings in ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol 1993;51(1):7-11 Epub 1993/10/01.
38. Romagnolo C, Trivella G, Bonacina M, Fornale M, Maggino T, Ferrazzi E. Preoperative diagnosis of 221 consecutive ovarian masses: scoring system and expert evaluation. Eur J Gynaecol Oncol 2006;27(5):487-9.
39. 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(4):659-64 Epub 1988/10/01.
40. Schutter EM, Kenemans P, Sohn C, Kristen P, Crombach G, Westermann R, et al. Diagnostic value of pelvic examination, ultrasound, and serum CA 125 in postmenopausal women with a pelvic mass. An international multicenter study. Cancer 1994;74(4):1398-406 Epub 1994/08/15.
41. Schutter EM, Sohn C, Kristen P,Mobus V, Crombach G, KaufmannM, et al. Estimation of probability of malignancy using a logistic model combining physical examination, ultrasound, serum CA 125, and serum CA 72-4 in postmenopausal women with a pelvic mass: an international multicenter study. Gynecol Oncol 1998;69(1):56-63 Epub 1998/05/08.
42. Bromley B, Goodman H, Benacerraf BR. Comparison between sonographic morphology and Doppler waveform for the diagnosis of ovarian malignancy. Obstet Gynecol 1994;83(3):434-7 Epub 1994/03/01.
43. Benacerraf BR, Finkler NJ, Wojciechowski C, Knapp RC. Sonographic accuracy in the diagnosis of ovarian masses. J Reprod Med 1990;35(5):491-5. (Pubitemid 20165432)
44. 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(10):922-9 Epub 1990/10/01.
45. Bensaid C, Le Frere Belda MA, Metzger U, Larousserie F, Clement D, Chatellier G, et al. Performance of laparoscopy in identifying malignant ovarian cysts. Surg Endosc 2006;20(9):1410-4. (Pubitemid 44451254)
46. Engelen MJA, Bongaerts AHH, Sluiter WJ, de Haan HH, Bogchelman DH, Tenvergert EM, et al. Distinguishing benign and malignant pelvic masses: the value of different diagnostic methods in everyday clinical practice. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2008;136(1):94-101.
47. Tingulstad S, Hagen B, Skjeldestad FE, 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. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1996;103(8):826-31 Epub 1996/08/01.
48. 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(3):448-52 Epub 1999/03/13.
49. 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 Epub 2001/05/02.
50. Tailor A, Jurkovic D, Bourne TH, Collins WP, Campbell S. Sonographic prediction of malignancy in adnexal masses using an artificial neural network. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1999;106(1):21-30 Epub 1999/07/30.
51. Timmerman D, Verrelst H, Bourne TH, De Moor B, Collins WP, Vergote I, et al. Artificial neural network models for the preoperative discrimination between malignant and benign adnexal masses. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1999;13(1):17-25 Epub 1999/04/14.
52. 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;13(15 Pt 1):4440-7. (Pubitemid 47219712)
53. 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 Epub 1999/07/20.
54. 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 Epub 2002/01/10.
55. Kupesic S, Plavsic B. Early ovarian cancer: 3-D power Doppler. Abdom Imaging 2006;31(5):613-9. (Pubitemid 46360854)
56. Exacoustos C, Romanini ME, Rinaldo D, Amoroso C, Szabolcs B, Zupi E, et al. Preoperative sonographic features of borderline ovarian tumors. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2005;25(1):50-9. (Pubitemid 40128903)
57. Van Calster B, Timmerman D, Bourne T, Testa AC, Van Holsbeke C, Domali E, et al. Discrimination between benign and malignant adnexal masses by specialist ultrasound examination versus serum CA-125. J Natl Cancer Inst 2007;99(22):1706-14. (Pubitemid 351767215)
58. Choudhury S, Mohiuddin ASM, Ahmed AU, Ahsan S. Preoperative discrimination of benign and malignant ovarian tumors using color Doppler sonography and its correlation with histopathology. Bangladesh Med Res Counc Bull 2005;31(1):21-6. (Pubitemid 44262549)
59. Wilson WD, Valet AS, Andreotti RF, Green-Jarvis B, Lyshchik A, Fleischer AC. Sonographic quantification of ovarian tumor vascularity. J Ultrasound Med 2006;25(12):1577-81.
60. Dai S-Y, Hata K, Inubashiri E, Kanenishi K, Shiota A, Ohno M, et al. Does three-dimensional power Doppler ultrasound improve the diagnostic accuracy for the prediction of adnexal malignancy? J Obstet Gynaecol Res 2008;34(3):364-70. (Pubitemid 351832331)
61. Guerriero S, Ajossa S, Piras S, Gerada M, Floris S, Garau N, et al. Three-dimensional quantification of tumor vascularity as a tertiary test after B-mode and power Doppler evaluation for detection of ovarian cancer. J Ultrasound Med 2007;26(10):1271-8. (Pubitemid 47606810)
62. Kurjak A, Kupesic S, Sparac V, Kosuta D. Three-dimensional ultrasonographic and power Doppler characterization of ovarian lesions. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2000;16(4):365-71 Epub 2001/02/13.
63. 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 Epub 1994/11/01.
64. ACdS Marchesini, Magrio FAA, Berezowski AT, Neto OBP, Nogueira AA, Candido dos Reis FJ. A critical analysis of Doppler velocimetry in the differential diagnosis ofmalignant and benign ovarian masses. JWomens Health (Larchmt) 2008;17(1):97-102.
65. Mousavi AS, Borna S, Moeinoddini S. Estimation of probability of malignancy using a logistic model combining color Doppler ultrasonography, serum CA125 level in women with a pelvic mass. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2006;16(Suppl. 1):92-8.
66. Marret H, Sauget S, Giraudeau B, Body G, Tranquart F. Power Doppler vascularity index for predicting malignancy of adnexal masses. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2005;25:508-13. (Pubitemid 40686049)
67. Erdogan N, Ozcelik B, Serin IS, Akgun M, Ozturk F. Doppler ultrasound assessment and serum cancer antigen 125 in the diagnosis of ovarian tumors. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2005;91(2):146-50. (Pubitemid 41456718)
68. Alcazar J, Castillo G. Comparison of 2-dimensional and 3-dimensional power-Doppler imaging in complex adnexal masses for the prediction of ovarian cancer. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2005;807(12)
69. 192(3).
70. Benjapibal M, Neungton C. Pre-operative prediction of serum CA125 level in women with ovarian masses. J Med Assoc Thai 2007;90(10):1986-91. (Pubitemid 350057089)
71. El-Shalakany A, Abou-Talib Y, Shalaby HS, Sallam M. Preoperative serum inhibin levels in patients with ovarian tumors. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 2004;30(2):155-61. (Pubitemid 38508632)
72. Zhang Z, Yu Y, Xu F, Berchuck A, van Haaften-Day C, Havrilesky LJ, et al. Combining multiple serum tumor markers improves detection of stage I epithelial ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol 2007;107(3):526-31. (Pubitemid 350160868)
73. Milojkovic M, Hrgovic Z, Hrgovic I, Jonat W, Maass N, Bukovic D. Significance of CA 125 serum level in discrimination between benign and malignant masses in the pelvis. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2004;269(3):176-80. (Pubitemid 38374704)
74. Nakae M, Iwamoto I, Fujino T, Maehata Y, Togami S, Yoshinaga M, et al. Preoperative plasma osteopontin level as a biomarker complementary to carbohydrate antigen 125 in predicting ovarian cancer. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 2006;32(3):309-14. (Pubitemid 43800424)
75. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Committee on Gynecologic Practice. The role of the generalist obstetrician-gynecologist in the early detection of ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol 2002;87(3):237-9 Epub 2002/12/21.
76. Im SS, Gordon AN, Buttin BM, Leath III CA, Gostout BS, Shah C, et al. Validation of referral guidelines for women with pelvic masses. Obstet Gynecol 2005;105(1):35-41 Epub 2004/12/31.
77. Dearking AC, Aletti GD, McGree ME, Weaver AL, Sommerfield MK, Cliby WA. How relevant are ACOG and SGO guidelines for referral of adnexal mass? Obstet Gynecol 2007;110(4):841-8 Epub 2007/10/02.
78. Le T, Giede C, Salem S, Lefebvre G, Rosen B, Bentley J, et al. Initial evaluation and referral guidelines for management of pelvic/ovarian masses. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2009;31(7):668-80 Epub 2009/09/19.
79. Nguyen H, Averette H, Hoskins W, Penalver M, Sevin B, Steren A. National survey of ovarian carcinoma. Part V. The impact of physician's specialty on patients' survival. Cancer 1993;72(12).
80. Mayer AR, Chambers SK, Graves E, Holm C, Tseng PC, Nelson BE, et al. Ovarian cancer staging: does it require a gynecologic oncologist? Gynecol Oncol 1992;47(2).
81. Chan JK, Chan JKKD, Shin JY, Husain A, Teng NN, Berek JS, et al. Influence of the gynaecologic oncologist on the survival of ovarian cancer patients. Obstet Gynecol 2007;109(6):1342-50. (Pubitemid 46869873)
82. Earle CC, Schrag D, Neville BA, Yabroff R, Topor M, Fahey A, et al. Effect of surgeon specialty on processes of care and outcomes for ovaian cancer patients. J Natl Cancer Inst 2006;98(3):172-80. (Pubitemid 43205479)
83. Engelen MK, Kas H, Willemse P, Aalders J, Vries EG, Schaapveld M. Surgery by consultant gynecologic oncologist improves survival in patientswith ovarian carcinoma. Cancer 2005;106:589-98. (Pubitemid 43157622)
84. Valentin L. Gray scale sonography, subjective evaluation of the color Doppler image and measurement of blood flow velocity for distinguishing benign and malignant tumors of suspected adnexal origin. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 1997;72(1):63-72 Epub 1997/03/01.
85. Bandiera E, Romani C, Specchia C, Zanotti L, Galli C, Ruggeri G, et al. Serum human epididymis protein 4 and risk for ovarian malignancy algorithm as new diagnostic and prognostic tools for epithelial ovarian cancer management. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Dec 2011;20(12):2496-506.
86. Moore RG, Miller MC, Disilvestro P, Landrum LM, Gajewski W, Ball JJ, et al. Evaluation of the diagnostic accuracy of the risk of ovarian malignancy algorithm in women with a pelvic mass. Obstet Gynecol Aug 2011;118(2 Pt 1):280-8.
87. Montagnana M, Danese E, Ruzzenente O, Bresciani V, Nuzzo T, Gelati M, et al. The ROMA (Risk of Ovarian Malignancy Algorithm) for estimating the risk of epithelial ovarian cancer in women presenting with pelvic mass: is it really useful? Clin Chem Lab Med Mar 2011;49(3):521-5.
88. Moore RG, Jabre-Raughley M, Brown AK, Robison KM, Miller MC, Allard WJ, et al. Comparison of a novel multiple marker assay vs the Risk of Malignancy Index for the prediction of epithelial ovarian cancer in patients with a pelvic mass. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2010 Sep;203(3):228 e1-6.
89. Leeflang MM, Deeks JJ, Gatsonis C, Bossuyt PM, Group CDTAW. Systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy. Ann Intern Med 2008;149:889-97.
90. Bazot M, Nassar-Slaba J, Thomassin-Naggara I, Cortez A, Uzan S, Darai E. MR imaging compared with intraoperative frozen-section examination for the diagnosis of adnexal tumors; correlation with final histology. Eur Radiol 2006;16(12):2687-99. (Pubitemid 44823922)
91. Booth SJ, Turnbull LW, Poole DR, Richmond I. The accurate staging of ovarian cancer using 3T magnetic resonance imaging-a realistic option. BJOG: Int J Obstet Gynaecol 2008;115(7):894-901. (Pubitemid 351692995)
92. Chen M, Wang WC, Zhou C, Zhou NN, Cai K, Yang ZH, et al. Differentiation between malignant and benign ovarian tumors by magnetic resonance imaging. Chin Med Sci J 2006;21(4):270-5. (Pubitemid 46133461)
93. Daponte A, Stergioti E, Messinis I. Risk scoring for adnexal masses and endoscopic management. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2007;96(1):42-3. (Pubitemid 46108790)
94. Ferrazzi E, Lissoni AA, Dordoni D, Trio D, Redaelli L, Rusconi C, et al. Differentiation of small adnexal masses based on morphologic characteristics of transvaginal sonographic imaging: a multicenter study. J Ultrasound Med 2005;24(11):1467-73. (Pubitemid 41619034)
95. Guerra A, Cunha TM, Felix A. Magnetic resonance evaluation of adnexal masses. Acta Radiol 2008;49(6):700-9.
96. Jokubkiene L, Sladkevicius P, Valentin L. Does three-dimensional power Doppler ultrasound help in discrimination between benign and malignant ovarian masses? Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2007;29(2):215-25. (Pubitemid 46326596)
97. Kitajima K, Murakami K, Yamasaki E, Kaji Y, Fukasawa I, Inaba N, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of integrated FDG-PET/contrast-enhanced CT in staging ovarian cancer: comparison with enhanced CT. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2008;35(10):1912-20.
98. Leelahakorn S, Tangjitgamol S, Manusirivithaya S, Thongsuksai P, Jaroenchainon P, Jivangkul C. Comparison of ultrasound score, CA125, menopausal status, and risk of malignancy index in differentiating between benign and borderline or malignant ovarian tumors. J Med Assoc Thai 2005;88(Suppl. 2):S22-30.
99. Moszynski R, Szpurek D, Smolen A, Sajdak S. Comparison of diagnostic usefulness of predictive models in preliminary differentiation of adnexal masses. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2006;16(1):45-51.
100. Sladkevicius P, Jokubkiene L, Valentin L. Contribution ofmorphological assessment of the vessel tree by three-dimensional ultrasound to a correct diagnosis of malignancy in ovarian masses. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2007;30(6):874-82. (Pubitemid 350205409)
101. Sohaib SA, Mills TD, Sahdev A, Webb JA, Vantrappen PO, Jacobs IJ, et al. The role of magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasound in patients with adnexal masses. Clin Radiol 2005;60(3):340-8 Epub 2005/02/16.
102. Szpurek D, Moszynski R, Smolen A, Sajdak S. Artificial neural network computer prediction of ovarian malignancy in women with adnexal masses. Int J Gynecol Obstet 2005;89(2):108-13. (Pubitemid 40585608)
103. Tan PL, Willatt JM, Lindsell D. The ability of ultrasound to detect gynaecological neoplasms and their ultrasound morphological features. Australas Radiol 2007;51(3):260-6. (Pubitemid 46743855)
104. Testa AC, Timmerman D, Exacoustos C, Fruscella E, Van Holsbeke C, Bokor D, et al. The role of CnTI-SonoVue in the diagnosis of ovarian masses with papillary projections: a preliminary study. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2007;29(5):512-6. (Pubitemid 46826551)
105. 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;23(34):8794-801. (Pubitemid 46211525)
106. Tongsong T, Wanapirak C, Sukpan K, Khunamornpong S, Pathumbal A. Subjective sonographic assessment for differentiation between malignant and benign adnexal masses. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 2007;8(1):124-6.
107. Tsili AC, Tsampoulas C, Argyropoulou M, Navrozoglou I, Alamanos Y, Paraskevaidis E, et al. Comparative evaluation of multidetector CT and MR imaging in the differentiation of adnexal masses. Eur Radiol 2008;18(5):1049-57.
108. Umemoto M, Shiota M, Shimono T, Hoshiai H. Preoperative diagnosis of ovarian tumors, focusing on the solid area based on diagnostic imaging. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 2006;32(2):195-201.
109. Valentin L, Ameye L, Jurkovic D,Metzger U, Lecuru F, Van Huffel S, et al.Which extrauterine pelvic masses are difficult to correctly classify as benign ormalignant on the basis of ultrasound findings and is there a way of making a correct diagnosis? Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2006;27(4):438-44. (Pubitemid 43735485)
110. Van Calster B, Timmerman D, Lu C, Suykens JAK, Valentin L, Van Holsbeke C, et al. Preoperative diagnosis of ovarian tumors using Bayesian kernel-based methods. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2007;29(5):496-504. (Pubitemid 46826549)
111. Wanapirak C, Srisupundit K, Tongsong T. Sonographic morphology scores (SMS) for differentiation between benign and malignant adnexal masses. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 2006;7(3):407-10.
112. Yazbek J, Raju KS, Ben-Nagi J, Holland T, Hillaby K, Jurkovic D. Accuracy of ultrasound subjective 'pattern recognition' for the diagnosis of borderline ovarian tumors. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2007;29(5):489-95. (Pubitemid 46826548)
113. Zhang M, Cheung MK, Shin JY, Kapp DS, Husain A, Teng NN, et al. Prognostic factors responsible for survival in sex cord stromal tumors of the ovary-an analysis of 376 women. Gynecol Oncol 2007;104(2):396-400. (Pubitemid 46156957)