medigraphic.com
Federación Mexicana de Ginecología y Obstetricia, A.C.

2022, Número 03

<< Anterior Siguiente >>

Ginecol Obstet Mex 2022; 90 (03)


Comparación del rendimiento diagnóstico de cuatro índices de riesgo de malignidad para cáncer de ovario

Ibáñez-García MI, Meléndez-González CV, González-Habib R, Castro-Torres I, Pérez-García EI

Idioma: Español
Referencias bibliográficas: 32
Paginas: 214-221
Archivo PDF: 165.38 Kb.


RESUMEN

Objetivo: Evaluar el rendimiento diagnóstico de cuatro índices de riesgo de malignidad (IRM) en la predicción de riesgo de cáncer de ovario.
Materiales y Métodos: Estudio comparativo y retrospectivo efectuado en pacientes mayores de 18 años con tumor anexial atendidas en el Hospital Christus Muguerza Conchita y Alta Especialidad del 2016 al 2021. Para evaluar el rendimiento diagnóstico de cada índice se utilizó la curva ROC y el índice de Youden para la obtención de sensibilidad y especificidad.
Resultados: Se incluyeron 330 pacientes con media de edad de 38 años. Para el IRM1 una S 73.9% y E de 85.3% con punto de corte en 126; IRM2 el mejor punto de corte se estableció en 210, con una S 72.5% y E de 89.3%; IRM3 el mejor punto de corte se estableció en 125, con una S 73.9% y E 85.8%; y para el IRM4 el punto de corte fue 436, con una S 68.1% y E 89.7%.
Conclusiones: El IRM es un método fácil, de bajo costo y accesible para la discriminación de pacientes con probable masa anexial maligna. En la población mexicana del noreste de México puede recomendarse la aplicación de cualquiera de los índices.


REFERENCIAS (EN ESTE ARTÍCULO)

  1. Gibberd R. Globocan 1: Cancer incidence and Mortality Worldwide. Statistics in Medicine 2013; 19 (19): 2714-2715. https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-0258 (20001015)19:19<2714::AID-SIM478>3.0.CO;2-B

  2. Stewart C, Ralyea C, Lockwood S. Ovarian Cancer: An Integrated Review. Seminars in Oncology Nursing 2019; 35 (2): 151-56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soncn.2019.02.001

  3. Gershenson D, Lentz G, Lobo R, Valea F. Comprehensive gynecology. 8th ed. Philadelphia: Elsevier, 2021.

  4. Javdekar R, Maitra N. Risk of Malignancy Index (RMI) in Evaluation of Adnexal Mass. J Obstet Gynecol India 2015; 65 (2). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13224-014-0609-1

  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 accurate preoperative diagnosis of ovarian cancer. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 1990; 97 (10): 922-29. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.1990.tb02448.x

  6. Le T, Giede C. No. 230-Initial Evaluation and Referral Guidelines for Management of Pelvic/Ovarian Masses. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Canada 2018; 40 (3): e223-e229. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jogc.2018.01.016

  7. Dochez V, Caillon H, Vaucel E, Dimet J, Winer N, Ducarme G. Biomarkers and algorithms for diagnosis of ovarian cancer: CA125, HE4, RMI and ROMA, a review. J Ovarian Res 2019; 12 (1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13048-019-0503-7

  8. Practice Bulletin No. 174: Evaluation and management of adnexal masses. Obstetrics & Gynecology 2016; 128 (5): e210-e226. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000001768

  9. Akker PV, Aalders A, Snijders M, Kluivers K, Samlal R, Vollebergh J et al. Evaluation of the risk of malignancy index in daily clinical management of adnexal masses. Gynecologic Oncology 2010; 116 (3): 384-88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2009.11.014

  10. Tingulstad S, Hagen B, Skjeldestad F, 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. BJOG 1996; 103 (8): 826-31. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0528.1996.tb09882.x

  11. Rooth C. Ovarian cancer: risk factors, treatment and management. British Journal of Nursing 2013; 22 (17): 23-30. doi: 10.12968/bjon.2013.22.Sup17.S23

  12. Yamamoto Y, Yamada R, Oguri H, Maeda N, Fukaya T. Comparison of four malignancy risk indices in the preoperative evaluation of patients with pelvic masses. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reproductive Biology 2009; 144 (2): 163-67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2009.02.048

  13. Yamamoto Y, Tsuchida A, Ushiwaka T, Nagai R, Matsumoto M, Komatsu J et al. Comparison of 4 risk-of-malignancy indexes in the preoperative evaluation of patients with pelvic masses: A prospective study. Clinical Ovarian and Other Gynecologic Cancer 2014; 7 (1-2): 8-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogc.2014.11.001

  14. Manjunath AP, Pratapkumar, Sujatha K, Vani R. Comparison of Three Risk of Malignancy Indices in Evaluation of Pelvic Masses. Gynecologic Oncology. 2001; 81 (2): 225-29. https://doi.org/10.1006/gyno.2001.6122

  15. Akker VP, Aalders AL, Snijders MPLM, Kluivers K, Smalal R, Vollebergh J, Massuger L. Evaluation of the risk of malignancy index in daily clinical management of adnexal masses. Gynecologic Oncology 2010; 116 (3): 384-88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2009.11.014

  16. Ulusoy S, Akbayir O, Numanoglu C, Ulusoy N, Odabas E, et al. The risk of malignancy index in discrimination of adnexal masses. Clinical Practice. Int J Gynecol and Obstetrics 2007; 96: 186-91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgo.2006.10.006

  17. Gibberd R. Globocan 1: Cancer incidence and Mortality Worldwide. Statistics in Medicine 2013; 19 (19): 2714-2715. https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-0258 (20001015)19:19<2714::AID-SIM478>3.0.CO;2-B

  18. Stewart C, Ralyea C, Lockwood S. Ovarian Cancer: An Integrated Review. Seminars in Oncology Nursing 2019; 35 (2): 151-56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soncn.2019.02.001

  19. Gershenson D, Lentz G, Lobo R, Valea F. Comprehensive gynecology. 8th ed. Philadelphia: Elsevier, 2021.

  20. Javdekar R, Maitra N. Risk of Malignancy Index (RMI) in Evaluation of Adnexal Mass. J Obstet Gynecol India 2015; 65 (2). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13224-014-0609-1

  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. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 1990; 97 (10): 922-29. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.1990.tb02448.x

  22. Le T, Giede C. No. 230-Initial Evaluation and Referral Guidelines for Management of Pelvic/Ovarian Masses. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Canada 2018; 40 (3): e223-e229. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jogc.2018.01.016

  23. Dochez V, Caillon H, Vaucel E, Dimet J, Winer N, Ducarme G. Biomarkers and algorithms for diagnosis of ovarian cancer: CA125, HE4, RMI and ROMA, a review. J Ovarian Res 2019; 12 (1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13048-019-0503-7

  24. Practice Bulletin No. 174: Evaluation and management of adnexal masses. Obstetrics & Gynecology 2016; 128 (5): e210-e226. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000001768

  25. Akker PV, Aalders A, Snijders M, Kluivers K, Samlal R, Vollebergh J et al. Evaluation of the risk of malignancy index in daily clinical management of adnexal masses. Gynecologic Oncology 2010; 116 (3): 384-88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2009.11.014

  26. Tingulstad S, Hagen B, Skjeldestad F, 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. BJOG 1996; 103 (8): 826-31. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0528.1996.tb09882.x

  27. Rooth C. Ovarian cancer: risk factors, treatment and management. British Journal of Nursing 2013; 22 (17): 23-30. doi: 10.12968/bjon.2013.22.Sup17.S23

  28. Yamamoto Y, Yamada R, Oguri H, Maeda N, Fukaya T. Comparison of four malignancy risk indices in the preoperative evaluation of patients with pelvic masses. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reproductive Biology 2009; 144 (2): 163-67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2009.02.048

  29. Yamamoto Y, Tsuchida A, Ushiwaka T, Nagai R, Matsumoto M, Komatsu J et al. Comparison of 4 risk-of-malignancy indexes in the preoperative evaluation of patients with pelvic masses: A prospective study. Clinical Ovarian and Other Gynecologic Cancer 2014; 7 (1-2): 8-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogc.2014.11.001

  30. Manjunath AP, Pratapkumar, Sujatha K, Vani R. Comparison of Three Risk of Malignancy Indices in Evaluation of Pelvic Masses. Gynecologic Oncology. 2001; 81 (2): 225-29. https://doi.org/10.1006/gyno.2001.6122

  31. Akker VP, Aalders AL, Snijders MPLM, Kluivers K, Smalal R, Vollebergh J, Massuger L. Evaluation of the risk of malignancy index in daily clinical management of adnexal masses. Gynecologic Oncology 2010; 116 (3): 384-88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2009.11.014

  32. Ulusoy S, Akbayir O, Numanoglu C, Ulusoy N, Odabas E, et al. The risk of malignancy index in discrimination of adnexal masses. Clinical Practice. Int J Gynecol and Obstetrics 2007; 96: 186-91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgo.2006.10.006




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com