Literature DB >> 14529661

Preoperative differentiation of malignant from benign ovarian tumors: the efficacy of morphology indexing and Doppler flow sonography.

F R Ueland1, P D DePriest, E J Pavlik, R J Kryscio, J R van Nagell.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study was to determine the efficacy of morphology indexing and Doppler flow sonography as methods to predict risk of malignancy in sonographically confirmed ovarian tumors.
METHODS: Risk of malignancy was assessed preoperatively in 442 ovarian tumors using a new morphology index (MI) based on tumor volume and wall structure. Each tumor was assigned a score of 0 to 10 based on increasing volume and morphologic complexity. Doppler flow studies were performed on 371 of these tumors. Following morphologic evaluation, all ovarian tumors were removed surgically.
RESULTS: Of 315 tumors with a MI < 5 there was only 1 malignancy (a stage IA granulosa cell tumor <2 cm in diameter) whereas there were 52 malignancies in 127 tumors with a MI > or = 5. Stage of disease was as follows: stage I, 33; stage II, 6; stage III, 14. Risk of malignancy was related directly to MI score, varying from 0.3% in tumors with a MI < 5 to 84% in tumors with a MI > or = 8. A MI value of > or = 5 as indicative of malignancy was associated with the following statistical parameters: sensitivity 0.981, specificity 0.808, PPV 0.409, NPV 0.997. A pulsatility index (PI) < 1.0 as indicative of malignancy was associated with: sensitivity 0.528, specificity 0.776, PPV 0.288, NPV 0.906. A resistive index (RI) < 0.4 as indicative of malignancy was associated with: sensitivity 0.222, specificity 0.867, PPV 0.222, and NPV 0.867. The addition of Doppler flow indices to MI did not improve the accuracy of predicting malignancy. Likewise, the absence or presence of ovarian tumor blood flow was not reliable as a means to differentiate benign from malignant ovarian tumors.
CONCLUSIONS: Morphology indexing is an accurate and inexpensive method of differentiating benign from malignant ovarian tumors, and can be a valuable adjunct in treatment planning. The addition of Doppler flow studies did not improve diagnostic accuracy of MI.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 14529661     DOI: 10.1016/s0090-8258(03)00414-1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Gynecol Oncol        ISSN: 0090-8258            Impact factor:   5.482


  18 in total

Review 1.  Protein biomarkers of ovarian cancer: the forest and the trees.

Authors:  Brian M Nolen; Anna E Lokshin
Journal:  Future Oncol       Date:  2012-01       Impact factor: 3.404

Review 2.  Contemporary progress in ovarian cancer screening.

Authors:  Christine S Walsh; B Y Karlan
Journal:  Curr Oncol Rep       Date:  2007-11       Impact factor: 5.075

3.  Evaluation of whether the ultrasonographic onion skin sign is specific for the diagnosis of an appendiceal mucocele.

Authors:  Toru Kameda; Fukiko Kawai; Nobuyuki Taniguchi; Kiyoka Omoto; Yasuyuki Kobori; Kazukiyo Arakawa
Journal:  J Med Ultrason (2001)       Date:  2014-03-06       Impact factor: 1.314

4.  Ovarian cancer screening and early detection in the general population.

Authors:  Jose A Rauh-Hain; Thomas C Krivak; Marcela G Del Carmen; Alexander B Olawaiye
Journal:  Rev Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2011

5.  Pediatric risk of malignancy index for preoperative evaluation of childhood ovarian tumors.

Authors:  Amos Hong Pheng Loh; Chiou Li Ong; Shu Lin Lam; Joyce Horng Yiing Chua; Chan Hon Chui
Journal:  Pediatr Surg Int       Date:  2011-12-08       Impact factor: 1.827

6.  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.

Authors:  Hyo Young Jeoung; Han Song Choi; Yo Sup Lim; Min Young Lee; Soo A Kim; Sei Jun Han; Tae Gyu Ahn; Sang Joon Choi
Journal:  J Gynecol Oncol       Date:  2008-12-29       Impact factor: 4.401

7.  Personalized Circulating Tumor DNA Biomarkers Dynamically Predict Treatment Response and Survival In Gynecologic Cancers.

Authors:  Elena Pereira; Olga Camacho-Vanegas; Sanya Anand; Robert Sebra; Sandra Catalina Camacho; Leopold Garnar-Wortzel; Navya Nair; Erin Moshier; Melissa Wooten; Andrew Uzilov; Rong Chen; Monica Prasad-Hayes; Konstantin Zakashansky; Ann Marie Beddoe; Eric Schadt; Peter Dottino; John A Martignetti
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-12-30       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  Survival of Women With Type I and II Epithelial Ovarian Cancer Detected by Ultrasound Screening.

Authors:  John R van Nagell; Brian T Burgess; Rachel W Miller; Lauren Baldwin; Christopher P DeSimone; Frederick R Ueland; Bin Huang; Quan Chen; Richard J Kryscio; Edward J Pavlik
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2018-11       Impact factor: 7.623

Review 9.  Transvaginal ultrasonography in ovarian cancer screening: current perspectives.

Authors:  John R van Nagell; John T Hoff
Journal:  Int J Womens Health       Date:  2013-12-20

10.  A new scoring model for characterization of adnexal masses based on two-dimensional gray-scale and colour Doppler sonographic features.

Authors:  A M Abbas; K M Zahran; A Nasr; H S Kamel
Journal:  Facts Views Vis Obgyn       Date:  2014
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.