Combining clinical assessment and the Risk of Ovarian Malignancy Algorithm for the prediction of ovarian cancer

Gynecologic Oncology

Volumn 135, Issue 3, 2014, Pages 547-551

  Moore, Richard G ^a   Hawkins, Douglas M ^b   Miller, M Craig ^a   Landrum, Lisa M ^c   Gajewski, Walter ^d   Ball, John J ^e   Allard, W Jeffery ^f   Skates, Steven J ^g  

^a BROWN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA COLLEGE OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^d NEW HANOVER REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^e Jackson Clinic   (United States)

^f Medivice Consulting   (United States)

^g HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United States)

Author keywords

Ovarian cancer; Pelvic mass; Risk assessment; ROMA

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; BENIGN TUMOR; CANCER CLASSIFICATION; CANCER DIAGNOSIS; CANCER PATIENT; CANCER RISK; CLINICAL ASSESSMENT TOOL; CLINICAL EVALUATION; CLINICAL EXAMINATION; COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC TEST ACCURACY STUDY; FEMALE; HUMAN; INITIAL CLINICAL RISK ASSESSMENT; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALIGNANT NEOPLASTIC DISEASE; MEDICAL ONCOLOGIST; MULTICENTER STUDY; OVARY CANCER; OVARY CARCINOMA; PELVIS TUMOR; PREDICTIVE VALUE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK OF OVARIAN MALIGNANCY ALGORITHM; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SINGLE BLIND PROCEDURE; TUMOR DIFFERENTIATION; ALGORITHM; BIOLOGICAL MODEL; CANCER STAGING; CLINICAL TRIAL; METABOLISM; OVARIAN NEOPLASMS; PATHOLOGY;

TUMOR MARKER;

ALGORITHMS; FEMALE; HUMANS; MODELS, BIOLOGICAL; NEOPLASM STAGING; OVARIAN NEOPLASMS; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; RISK ASSESSMENT; TUMOR MARKERS, BIOLOGICAL;

EID: 84920845586     PISSN: 00908258     EISSN: 10956859     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2014.10.017     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. Pejovic T, Nezhat F. Laparoscopic management of adnexal masses the opportunities and the risks. Ann N Y Acad Sci Sep 2001;943:255-68.
2. Curtin JP. Management of the adnexal mass. Gynecol Oncol Dec 1994;55(3 Pt 2): S42-6.
3. Aune G, Torp SH, Syversen U, Hagen B, Tingulstad S. Ten years' experience with centralized surgery of ovarian cancer in one health region in Norway. Int J Gynecol Cancer Feb 2012;22(2):226-31.
4. Bristow RE, Palis BE, Chi DS, Cliby WA. The National Cancer Database report on advanced-stage epithelial ovarian cancer: impact of hospital surgical case volume on overall survival and surgical treatment paradigm. Gynecol Oncol Sep 2010; 118(3):262-7.
5. Paulsen T, Kjaerheim K, Kaern J, Tretli S, Trope C. Improved short-term survival for advanced ovarian, tubal, and peritoneal cancer patients operated at teaching hospitals. Int J Gynecol Cancer Jan 2006;16(Suppl. 1):11-7.
6. Tingulstad S, Skjeldestad FE, Hagen B. The effect of centralization of primary surgery on survival in ovarian cancer patients. Obstet Gynecol Sep 2003;102(3):499-505.
7. Bast Jr RC, Xu FJ, Yu YH, Barnhill S, Zhang Z, Mills GB. CA 125: the past and the future. Int J Biol Markers Oct 1998;13(4):179-87.
8. Committee ACOG. Opinion: number 280, December 2002. The role of the generalist obstetrician-gynecologist in the early detection of ovarian cancer. Obstet Gynecol Dec 2002;100(6):1413-6.
9. Carney ME, Lancaster JM, Ford C, Tsodikov A, Wiggins CL. A population-based study of patterns of care for ovarian cancer: who is seen by a gynecologic oncologist and who is not? Gynecol Oncol Jan 2002;84(1):36-42.
10. Gershenson DM. Why American women are not receiving state-of-the-art gynecologic cancer care. Cancer J Nov 2001;7(6):450-7.
11. Karlsen MA, Sandhu N, Hogdall C, Christensen IJ, Nedergaard L, Lundvall L, et al. Evaluation of HE4, CA125, Risk of Ovarian Malignancy Algorithm (ROMA) and risk ofmalignancy index (RMI) as diagnostic tools of epithelial ovarian cancer in patients with a pelvic mass. Gynecol Oncol Nov 2012;127(2):379-83.
12. Lu KH, Patterson AP, Wang L, Marquez RT, Atkinson EN, Baggerly KA, et al. Selection of potential markers for epithelial ovarian cancer with gene expression arrays and recursive descent partition analysis. Clin Cancer Res May 15 2004;10(10):3291-300.
13. Moore RG, Brown AK, Miller MC, Skates S, Allard WJ, Verch T, et al. The use of multiple novel tumor biomarkers for the detection of ovarian carcinoma in patients with a pelvic mass. Gynecol Oncol Nov 30 2007;108:402-8.
14. Yurkovetsky Z, Skates S, Lomakin A, Nolen B, Pulsipher T, Modugno F, et al. Development of amultimarker assay for early detection of ovarian cancer. J Clin Oncol May 1 2010;28(13):2159-66.
15. Bouchard D, Morisset D, Bourbonnais Y, Tremblay GM. Proteins with whey-acidic-protein motifs and cancer. Lancet Oncol Feb 2006;7(2):167-74.
16. Bordin L, Fiore C, Dona G, Andrisani A, Ambrosini G, Faggian D, et al. Evaluation of erythrocyte band 3 phosphotyrosine level, glutathione content, CA-125, and human epididymal secretory protein E4 as combined parameters in endometriosis. Fertil Steril Oct 2010;94(5):1616-21.
17. Moore RG, Miller MC, Steinhoff MM, Skates SJ, Lu KH, Lambert-Messerlian G, et al. Serum HE4 levels are less frequently elevated than CA125 in women with benign gynecologic disorders. Am J Obstet Gynecol Apr 2012;206(4):351-8.
18. Moore RG, McMeekin DS, Brown AK, Disilvestro P, Miller MC, Allard WJ, 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 Jan 2009;112(1):40-6.
19. 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, Part 1):280-8.
20. Molina R, Escudero JM, Auge JM, Filella X, Foj L, Torne A, et al. HE4 a novel tumour marker for ovarian cancer: comparison with CA 125 and ROMA algorithm in patients with gynaecological diseases. Tumour Biol Dec 2011;32(6):1087-95.
21. 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 Oct 1990;97(10):922-9.
22. Hakansson F, Hogdall EV, Nedergaard L, Lundvall L, Engelholm SA, Pedersen AT, et al. Risk of malignancy index used as a diagnostic tool in a tertiary centre for patients with a pelvic mass. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand Apr 2012;91(4):496-502.
23. Committee Opinion No. 477: the role of the obstetrician-gynecologist in the early detection of epithelial ovarian cancer. Obstet Gynecol Mar 2011;117(3):742-6.
24. Woolas RP, Xu FJ, Jacobs IJ, Yu YH, Daly L, Berchuck A, et al. Elevation of multiple serum markers in patients with stage I ovarian cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst Nov 3 1993;85(21):1748-51.
25. Husseinzadeh N. Status of tumormarkers in epithelial ovarian cancer has there been any progress? A review. Gynecol Oncol Jan 2011;120(1):152-7.
26. Siegel R, Naishadham D, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2012. CA Cancer J Clin Jan 2012;62(1):10-29.
27. Nolen B, Velikokhatnaya L, Marrangoni A, De GK, Lomakin A, Bast Jr RC, et al. Serum biomarker panels for the discrimination of benign from malignant cases in patients with an adnexal mass. Gynecol Oncol Jun 2010;117(3):440-5.
28. Huhtinen K, Suvitie P, Hiissa J, Junnila J, Huvila J, Kujari H, et al. Serum HE4 concentration differentiates malignant ovarian tumours from ovarian endometriotic cysts. Br J Cancer Apr 21 2009;100(8):1315-9.
29. Partheen K, Kristjansdottir B, Sundfeldt K. Evaluation of ovarian cancer biomarkers HE4 and CA-125 in women presenting with a suspicious cystic ovarian mass. J Gynecol Oncol Dec 2011;22(4):244-52.
30. Van GT, Cadron I, Despierre E, Daemen A, Leunen K, Amant F, et al. HE4 and CA125 as a diagnostic test in ovarian cancer: prospective validation of the Risk of Ovarian Malignancy Algorithm. Br J Cancer Mar 1 2011;104(5):863-70.
31. 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 Feb 3 2011;49(3):521-5.
32. 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 Oct 2007;110(4):841-8.
33. 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 patientswith a pelvicmass. Am J Obstet Gynecol May 13 2010;203(3):228-34.