2018, Number 08
<< Back Next >>
Ginecol Obstet Mex 2018; 86 (08)
Comparison of three ultrasound index in evaluating the risk of malignancy of adnexal tumors
González-Burgos OM, Álvarez-Licona NE, Lever-Rosas CD
Language: Spanish
References: 23
Page: 519-529
PDF size: 571.82 Kb.
ABSTRACT
Objective: To determine and compare the diagnostic performance of the Simple
Ultrasound-Based Rules (SUR), Sonographic Morphology Index (SMI) and the Jacob´s Risk
Malignancy Index (RMI) in the diagnosis of benignity or malignancy to an adnexal tumor.
Materials and Methods: Retrospective, cross-sectional and analytical study at
the at the Hospital Militar de Especialidades de la Mujer y Neonatología of Mexico
City. Patients with ultrasound diagnosis of adnexal tumor who underwent surgery were
included. The diagnostic performance of the indices compared to histopathological
diagnosis was studied using contingency tables.
Results: 141 women and 166 tumors were included for analysis, 22 cases were
bilateral. Of the sample analyzed, 79 were premenopausal and 62 postmenopausal.
Cases of malignant neoplasm were 43 (25.9%) and benign 123 (74.1%). The SMI had
a sensitivity of 98.8%, specificity of 33.3%, positive predictive value (PPV) of 33.9%,
and negative predictive value (NPV) of 97.6%. SUR showed a sensitivity of 97.2%,
specificity of 71.1%, PPV of 55.6% and NPV of 98.6%; And RMI had a sensitivity of
72.7%, specificity of 79.3%, PPV of 55.8% and NPV of 89.4%.
Conclusions: The simple ultrasonographic rules are a presurgical model that
in 82% of the cases allowed to classify the adnexal tumors in benign or malignant.
Indeterminate cases should be reevaluated by an expert sonographer. The method is
reproducible by evaluators of medium experience and susceptible of being applied in
hospital institutions of the second and third level of care.
REFERENCES
Pérez-López FR, et al. Peri- and post-menopausal incidental adnexal masses and the risk of sporadic ovarian malignancy: new insights and clinical management. https://doi.org /10.3109/09513590.2010.487611.
Ameye L, et.al. A scoring system to differentiate malignant from benign masses in specifc ultrasound-based subgroups of adnexal tumors. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.6273.
Sayasneh A, et al. The characteristic ultrasound features of specific types of ovarian pathology (review). https://doi. org/10.3892/ijo.2014.2764.
Timmerman D, et.al. Simple ultrasound rules to distinguish between benign and malignant adnexal masses before surgery: prospective validation by IOTA group. doi: https:// doi.org/10.1136/bmj.c6839.
Mohaghegh P, Rockall AG. Imaging strategy for early ovarian cancer: characterization of adnexal masses with conventional and advanced imaging techniques. https:// doi.org/10.1148/rg.326125520.
Kaijser J, et al. Presurgical diagnosis of adnexal tumours using mathematical models and scoring systems: a systematic review and meta-analysis. https://doi.org/10.1093/ humupd/dmt059.
Harris RD, et al. ACR Appropriateness CriteriaÒ Clinically Suspected Adnexal Mass. doi: 10.1097/ RUQ.0b013e3182814d9b.
Stukan M, et al. Usefulness of Diagnostic Indices Comprising Clinical, Sonographic and Biomarker Data for Discriminating Benign from Malignant Ovarian Masses. https:// doi.org/10.7863/ultra.34.2.207.
Amor F, et al. GI-RADS reporting system for ultrasound evaluation of adnexal masses in clinical practice: a prospective multicenter study. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.9012.
Van Holsbeke C, et al. Ultrasound methods to distinguish between malignant and benign adnexal masses in the hands of examiners with different levels of experience. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.6443.
Valentin L, et al. Adnexal masses difficult to classify as benign or malignant using subjective assessment of grayscale and Doppler ultrasound findings: logistic regression models do not help. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.9030.
Valentin L, et al. Comparison of “pattern recognition” and logistic regression models for discrimination between benign and malignant pelvic masses: a prospective cross- validation. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.0960-7692.2001.00500.x
Gallardo-Rincón D, et al. Tercer Consenso Nacional de Cáncer de Ovario 2011. Rev Invest Clin 2011; 63(6): 665-702.
Arteaga Gómez A, y col. Cáncer de ovario: diagnóstico y tratamiento. Guías de Práctica Clínica COMEGO. Ginecol Obstet Mex 2010; 78(4):S415-S435.
Treviño-Báez JD, et al. Exactitud diagnóstica del índice de riesgo de malignidad II en mujeres posmenopáusicas con tumor anexial. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. circir.2015.10.007.
De Priest PD, Varner E, Powell J, Fried A, Puls L, Higgins R, Shenson D, et.al. The efficacy of a Sonographic Morphology Indexin Identifying Ovarian Cancer: A Multi-institutional Investigation. https://doi.org/10.1006/gyno.1994.1273.
Jeoung HY, et al. The efficacy of sonographic morphology indexing and serum CA-125 for preoperative differentiation of malignant from benign ovarian tumors in patients after operation with ovarian tumors. https://doi.org/10.3802/ jgo.2008.19.4.229.
Van Nagell Jr J, Hoff JT. Transvaginal ultrasonography in ovarian cancer screening: current perspectives. doi: 10.2147/ IJWH.S38347.
Nunes N, et al. Use of IOTA simple rules for diagnosis of ovarian cancer: meta‐analysis. https://doi.org/10.1002/ uog.13437.
Jacobs I, et al. A risk of malignancy index incorporating CA 125, ultrasound and menopausal status for the accurate preoperative diagnosis of ovarian cancer. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1471-0528.1990.tb02448.x.
Aktürk E, et.al. Comparison of four malignancy risk indices in the detection of malignant ovarian masses. https://doi. org/10.3802/jgo.2011.22.3.177.
Levine D, et.al. Management of asymptomatic ovarian and other adnexal cyst imaged at US. Society of Radiologists in Ultrasound Consensus Conference Statement. https://doi. org/10.1148/radiol.10100213.
Jung SI. Ultrasonography of ovarian masses using a pattern recognition approach. doi: 10.14366/usg.15003
Full text