SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Bakırköy Tıp Dergisi / 2020 / Cilt: 16 - Sayı: 2

Comparison of CA 125, CA 72-4, Risk of Malignancy Index and DePriest Scoring System in the Differentiation Between Benign and Malignant Adnexal Masses

Benign ve Malign Adneksiyal Kitle Ayrımında CA 125, CA 72-4, Malignite Risk İndeksi ve DePriest Skorlama Sisteminin Karşılaştırması

Haydar KAYA
Kemal SANDAL
Ahmet GOCMEN
İbrahim YİLMAZ
Pages
95–102
Publication Date
2022-10-11
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)

CA 125, CA 72-4, RMI and DePriest morphological scoring system were significantly higher in malignant group than benign group (p

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objective: The aim of this study is to compare prospectively CA 125, CA72-4, risk of malignancy index (RMI) and DePriest morphological scoring system in differentiation between benign and malignant adnexal masses.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Method: Data of 116 cases operated due to adnexal mass were analyzed.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:CA 125, CA 72-4, RMI and DePriest morphological scoring system were significantly higher in malignant group than benign group (p
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Objective: The aim of this study is to compare prospectively CA 125, CA72-4, risk of malignancy index (RMI) and DePriest morphological scoring system in differentiation between benign and malignant adnexal masses. Method: Data of 116 cases operated due to adnexal mass were analyzed. Blood samples were taken from the patients for CA 125 and CA 72-4 before the operation. In ultrasonographic examination, risk of malignancy index (RMI) and DePriest morphological scoring system were used. SPSS 22.0 (Statistical Package for Social Sciences) for Windows program was used for analyses. Results: The mean age was 53.8±5.4 years in malignant group which was significantly higher than the mean age of benign group (43.3±5.5 years). However, the weight, body mass index (BMI), gravidity and parity rates were similar and not statistically significant. CA 125, CA 72-4, RMI and DePriest morphological scoring system were significantly higher in malignant group than benign group (p

Özet

Amaç: Bu çalışmada CA 125, CA 72-4, malignite risk indeksi (RMI) ve DePriest morfolojik skorlama sisteminin benign-malign adneksiyal kitle ayrımında prospektif olarak karşılaştırılması amaçlanmıştır. Yöntem: Adneksiyel kitle nedeniyle opere olan 116 hastanın verileri incelendi. Operasyon öncesi hastalardan CA 125 ve CA 72-4 için kan alındı. USG değerlendirmesinde malignite risk indeksi (RMI) ve DePriest morfolojik skorlama sistemi kullanıldı. Analizlerde SPSS 22.0 (Statistical Package for Social Sciences) programından yararlanıldı. Bulgular: Malign hasta grubunda yaş ortalaması 53,8±5,4 saptandı ve benign gruptaki hastaların yaş ortalamasına (43,3±5,5) göre istatistiksel olarak anlamlı yüksekti. Ancak her iki grubun da kilo, VKİ, gravida ve parite oranları benzerdi ve istatistiksel olarak anlamlı değildi. Malign olan grupta CA 125 ve CA 72-4 değerleri, RMI ve DePriest skoru benign olan gruptan anlamlı (p

🔖

Cite This Article

KAYA, H., SANDAL, K., GOCMEN, A., YİLMAZ, İ. (2022). Comparison of CA 125, CA 72-4, Risk of Malignancy Index and DePriest Scoring System in the Differentiation Between Benign and Malignant Adnexal Masses. Bakırköy Tıp Dergisi, Cilt: 16 - Sayı: 2, 95–102. https://ajindex.com/articles/460022

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (12)

  1. DiSaia PJ, Creasman WT. Clinical gynecologic oncology. 6th ed. 2002. p. 259.
  2. Ayhan A, Durukan T, Günalp S. Temel kadın hastalıkları ve doğum bilgisi. 2008. p. 987
  3. Ayhan A, Gültekin M, Dursun P. Tekxtbook of gynecological oncology. Ankara: Güneş Publishing; 2009. p. 312
  4. Berek SJ. Berek and Novak’s gynecology. 2007. p. 1457-9
  5. Oztoprak B, Karakus S. Value of multiple computed tomography criteria for prediction of malignancy in patients with ovarian mass. Gynecology Obstetrics & Reproductive Medicine. 2018;24(1):42-6. Available from: http://gorm.com. tr/index.php/GORM/article/view/706/666
  6. Kabawat SE, Bast RC Jr, Welch WR, Knapp RC, Colvin RB. Immunopathologic characterisation of a monoclonal antibody that recognizes common surface antigens of human ovarian tumors of serous, endometrioid and clear cell types. Am J Clin Pathol. 1983;79(1):98-104.
  7. Hasholzner U, Baumgartner L, Stieber P, et al. Clinical significance of the tumour markers CA 125ll and CA 72-4 in ovarian carcinoma. Int J Cancer. 1996;69(4):329-34. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0215(19960822)69:4 3.0.CO;2-0 8. Yamamoto Y, Yamada R, Oguri H, et al. Comparison of four malignancy indices in the preoperative evaluation of patients with pelvic masses. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2009;144(2):163-7.
  8. 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.
  9. Deregözü A, Uzun I, Karahasanoğlu A, Yücel O. Bir eğitim ve araştırma hastanesinde opere edilen benign adneksiyal kitleli olguların analizi. Bakırköy Tıp Dergisi. 2018;14:40-3. Available from: http://cms.galenos.com.tr/Uploads/Article_20005/ BTD-14-40.pdf
  10. Obeidat BR, Amarin ZO, Latimer JA, Crawford RA. Risk of malignancy index in the preoperative evaluation of pelvic masses. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2004;85(3):255-8.
  11. Andersen ES, Knudsen A, Rix P, Johansen B. Risk of malignancy index in the preoperative evaluation of patients with adnexal masses. Gynecol Oncol. 2003;90(1):109-12.
  12. Tingulstad S, Hagen B, Skjeldestad F