Ovarian tumor in women of the late childbearing age: How to assess the risk of cancer;Guz jajnika u kobiety w późnym wieku rozrodczym - Jak ocenić ryzyko onkologiczne

Przeglad Menopauzalny

Volumn 17, Issue 1, 2013, Pages 78-82

  Woźniak, Sławomir ^a   Szkodziak, Piotr ^a   Czuczwar, Piotr ^a   Woźniakowska, Ewa ^a   Milart, Paweł ^a   Paszkowski, Maciej ^a   Paszkowski, Tomasz ^a  

^a III Katedra I Klinika Ginekologii   (Poland)

Author keywords

Childbearing age; Ovarian cancer; Risk of cancer

Indexed keywords

ADNEXA DISEASE; ALGORITHM; ARTICLE; CANCER DIAGNOSIS; CANCER MORTALITY; CANCER RISK; CANCER SURVIVAL; HUMAN; MATERNAL AGE; OVARY CARCINOMA; OVARY TUMOR; POLAND; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PREGNANCY; RISK ASSESSMENT; ULTRASOUND;

EID: 84877272531     PISSN: 16438876     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.5114/pm.2013.33426     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Zakład Epidemiologii i Prewencji Nowotworów Centrum Onkologii - Instytut w Warszawie. Raporty na podstawie danych Centrum Onkologii.
2. Howlader N, Noone AM, Krapcho M, et al. SEER Cancer Statistics Review 1975-2009 (Vintage 2009 Populations). Bethesda: National Cancer Institute; 2012. http://seer.cancer.gov/csr/1975-2009-pops09/
3. Jacobs IJ, Menon U. Progress and challenges in screening for early detection of ovarian cancer. Mol Cell Proteomics 2004; 3: 355-66. (Pubitemid 38702089)
4. Jemal A, Siegel R, Ward E, et al. Cancer statistics, 2007. CA Cancer J Clin 2007; 57: 43-66. (Pubitemid 46148091)
5. Hoskins WJ, McGuire WP, Brady MF, et al. The effect of diameter of largest residual disease on survival after primary cytoreductive surgery in patients with suboptimal residual epithelial ovarian carcinoma. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1994; 170: 974-9.
6. Young RC, Decker DG, Wharton JT, et al. Staging laparotomy in early ovarian cancer. JAMA 1983; 250: 3072-6. (Pubitemid 14201622)
7. Carney ME, Lancaster JM, Ford C, et al. A population-based study of patterns of care for ovarian cancer: who is seen by a gynecologic oncologist and who is not? Gynecol Oncol 2002; 84: 36-42. (Pubitemid 34056463)
8. Earle CC, Schrag D, Neville BA, et al. Effect of surgeon specialty on processes of care and outcomes for ovarian cancer patients. J Natl Cancer Inst 2006; 98: 172-80. (Pubitemid 43205479)
9. Thompson D, Easton DF. Cancer Incidence in BRCA1 mutation carriers. J Natl Cancer Inst 2002; 94: 1358-65. (Pubitemid 35154140)
10. Morrison PJ, Hodgson SV, Haites NE (eds.). Familial breast and ovarian cancer: genetics, screening and management. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2002.
11. Duffy MJ, Bonfrer JM, Kulpa J, et al. CA125 in ovarian cancer: European Group on Tumor Markers guidelines for clinical use. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2005; 15: 679-91. (Pubitemid 41783071)
12. Rosenthal AN, Menon U, Jacobs IJ. Screening for ovarian cancer. Clin Obstet Gynecol 2006; 49: 433-47. (Pubitemid 44181417)
13. Moore RG, MacLaughlan S, Bast RC Jr. Current state of biomarker development for clinical application in epithelial ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol 2010; 116: 240-5.
14. Berek JS, Hacker NF (eds.). Practical Gynecological Oncology. 4th ed. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia 2004.
15. Jacobs I, Oram D, Fairbanks J, et al. 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. (Pubitemid 20340625)
16. Enakpene CA, Omigbodun AO, Goecke TW, et al. Preoperative evaluation and triage of women with suspicious adnexal masses using risk of malignancy index. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 2009; 35: 131-8.
17. Sturgeon CM, Duffy MJ, Stenman UH, et al. National Academy of Clinical Biochemistry laboratory medicine practice guidelines for use of tumor markers in testicular, prostate, colorectal, breast, and ovarian cancers. Clin Chem 2008; 54: e11-79. (Pubitemid 352777353)
18. Buys SS, Partridge E, Greene MH, et al. Ovarian cancer screening in the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian (PLCO) cancer screening trial: findings from the initial screen of a randomized trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2005; 193: 1630-9. (Pubitemid 41540458)
19. Hellström I, Raycraft J, Hayden-Ledbetter M, et al. The HE4 (WFDC2) protein is a biomarker for ovarian carcinoma. Cancer Res 2003; 63: 3695-700. (Pubitemid 36793054)
20. Moore RG, Brown AK, Miller MC, et al. The use of multiple novel tumor biomarkers for the detection of ovarian carcinoma in patients with a pelvic mass. Gynecol Oncol 2008; 108: 402-8. (Pubitemid 351174295)
21. Moore RG, McMeekin DS, Brown AK, et al. A novel multiple marker bioassay utilizing HE4 and CA125 for the prediction of ovarian cancer in patients with a pelvic mass. Gynecol Oncol 2008; 108: 402-8. (Pubitemid 351174295)
22. Van Holsbeke C, Van Calster B, Valentin L, 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)
23. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Ovariancancer: The recognition and initial management of ovariancancer. NICE clinical guideline 122. NICE, London 2011.
24. Royal College of Obstetrics and Gynaecologists. Management of Suspected Ovarian Masses in Premenopausal Women Green-top Guideline No. 62. RCOG, London 2011.
25. Timmerman D, Testa AC, Bourne T, et al. Simple ultrasound-based rules for the diagnosis of ovarian cancer. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2008; 31: 681-90.
26. Timmerman D, Ameye L, Fischerova D, et al. Simple ultrasound rules to distinguish between benign and malignant adnexal masses before surgery: prospective validation by IOTA group. BMJ 2010; 341: c6839.
27. Timmerman D, Van Calster B, Testa AC, et al. Ovarian cancer prediction in adnexal masses using ultrasound-based logistic regression models: a temporal and external validation study by the IOTA group. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2010; 36: 226-34.
28. Faschingbauer F, Benz M, Häberle L, et al. Subjective assessment of ovarian masses using pattern recognition: the impact of experience on diagnostic performance and interobserver variability. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2012; 285: 1663-9.
29. Van Gorp T, Veldman J, Van Calster B, et al. Subjective assessment by ultrasound is superior to the risk of malignancy index (RMI) or the risk of ovarian malignancy algorithm (ROMA) in discriminating benign from malignant adnexal masses. Eur J Cancer 2012; 48: 1649-56.
30. Kaijser J, Bourne T, Valentin L, et al. Improving strategies for diagnosing ovarian cancer: a summary of the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis (IOTA) studies. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2013; 41: 9-20.