Journals / GORM:Gynecology Obstetrics & Reproductive Medicine / 2016 / Cilt: 22 - Sayı: 2

Preoperative Differentiation Between Malignant and Benign Ovarian Masses in Patients with Normal CA-125 Levels

Pages
94–98
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

CONCLUSIONS: Ovarian cysts larger than 8 cm, presence of solid area within the cyst, and postmenopausal status are the most important risk factors for ovarian malignancies in these patients withnormal CA-125 levels.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:OBJECTIVE: We aimed to determine the diagnostic values of some clinical and ultrasonographic features for predicting ovarian malignancies in patients with normal serum CA-125 levels.STUDY DESIGN: All of the 84 patients who were diagnosed with ovarian malignancy and 168 patientswith benign adnexal mass had normal CA-125 levels, and recruited as study and control groups, respectively.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Individual characteristics, ultrasonographic features, and risk of malignancy index (RMI) values of the groups were compared retrospectively.RESULTS: The ages, mean postmenopausal period of the postmenopausal women in the malignantgroup were significantly higher than the benign group.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:CONCLUSIONS: Ovarian cysts larger than 8 cm, presence of solid area within the cyst, and postmenopausal status are the most important risk factors for ovarian malignancies in these patients withnormal CA-125 levels.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to determine the diagnostic values of some clinical and ultrasonographic features for predicting ovarian malignancies in patients with normal serum CA-125 levels.STUDY DESIGN: All of the 84 patients who were diagnosed with ovarian malignancy and 168 patientswith benign adnexal mass had normal CA-125 levels, and recruited as study and control groups, respectively. Individual characteristics, ultrasonographic features, and risk of malignancy index (RMI) values of the groups were compared retrospectively.RESULTS: The ages, mean postmenopausal period of the postmenopausal women in the malignantgroup were significantly higher than the benign group. Nulliparity rates were similar between the twogroups. The number of postmenopausal patients was significantly higher in the malignant group. Mediancyst diameter and RMI values were significantly higher, and bilaterality and presence of solid area weremore frequent in this group. Logistic regression model showed that ovarian cysts larger than 8 cm [Oddsratio (OR): 7.012; p<0.001; 95% Confidence interval (CI): 3.463-14.198], presence of solid area withinthe cyst [OR: 7.43; p<0.001; 95% CI: 3.799-14.532], and postmenopausal state [OR: 2.893; p=0.027;95% CI: 1.129-7.412] were found to be significant factors to predict malignancy. CONCLUSIONS: Ovarian cysts larger than 8 cm, presence of solid area within the cyst, and postmenopausal status are the most important risk factors for ovarian malignancies in these patients withnormal CA-125 levels.

🔖

Cite This Article

ERSOY, E., TOKMAK, A., ERSOY, A. Ö., EVLİYAOĞLU, Ö., SARIKAYA, E. (2016). Preoperative Differentiation Between Malignant and Benign Ovarian Masses in Patients with Normal CA-125 Levels. GORM:Gynecology Obstetrics & Reproductive Medicine, Cilt: 22 - Sayı: 2, 94–98. https://ajindex.com/articles/190626

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (12)

  1. Walker JL, Powell CB, Chen LM, et al. Society of Gynecologic Oncology recommendations for the preven- tion of ovarian cancer. Cancer 2015;121:2108-120.
  2. Simsek HS, Tokmak A, Ozgu E, et al. Role of a risk of ma- lignancy index in clinical approaches to adnexal masses. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 2014;15:7793-7.
  3. Oei AL, Massuger LF, Bulten J, Ligtenberg MJ, Hoogerbrugge N, de Hullu JA. Surveillance of women at high risk for hereditary ovarian cancer is inefficient. Br J Cancer 2006;94:814-9.
  4. Terzic M, Dotlic J, Likic I, et al. Risk of malignancy index validity assessment in premenopausal and post- menopausal women with adnexal tumors. Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol 2013;52:253-7.
  5. 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 accu- rate preoperative diagnosis of ovarian cancer. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1990;97:922-9.
  6. Bast RC Jr, Klug TL, St John E, et al. A radioimmunoas- say using a monoclonal antibody to monitor the course of epithelial ovarian cancer. N Engl J Med 1983;309:883-7.
  7. Berek JS, Crum C, Friedlander M. Cancer of the ovary, fallopian tube, and peritoneum. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2012;119:S118-29. World Health Organization classification of tumours. Pathology and genetics of the breast and female genital or- gans. Lyon, IARC Press 2003
  8. Rosenthal AN, Jacobs IJ. The role of CA 125 in screening for ovarian cancer. Int J Biol Markers 1998;13:216-20.
  9. Kaymak O, Ustunyurt E, Okyay RE, Kalyoncu S, Mollamahmutoglu L. Role of Transvaginal Sonography and Serum CA-125 Values in Determining the Nature of the Postmenopausal Ovarian Cysts. J Turk Ger Gynecol Assoc 2006;7:24-28.
  10. Basogul N, Sanci M, Tinar S, Basogul O, Inal MM. The Importance of Doppler Ultrasonography, Ultrasonog rap - hic Morphologic Scores and Ca-125 in Differential Diagnosis of Pelvic Masses. Gynecol Obstet Reprod Med 2000;6(3):201-204. American College of Obstetricians anf Gynecologists. ACOG Committee Opinion: number 280, December 2002. The role of the generalist obstetrician-gynecologist in the early detection of ovarian cancer. Obstet Gynecol 2002;100:1413-6.
  11. Campos C, Sarian LO, Jales RM, et al. Performance of the Risk of Malignancy Index for Discriminating Malignant Tumors in Women With Adnexal Masses. J Ultrasound Med 2016;35:143-52.
  12. Geomini P, Kruitwagen R, Bremer GL, Cnossen J, Mol BW. The accuracy of risk scores in predicting ovarian ma- lignancy: a systematic review. Obstet Gynecol 2009; 113:3