Literature DB >> 19585547

Adding a single CA 125 measurement to ultrasound imaging performed by an experienced examiner does not improve preoperative discrimination between benign and malignant adnexal masses.

L Valentin1, D Jurkovic, B Van Calster, A Testa, C Van Holsbeke, T Bourne, I Vergote, S Van Huffel, D Timmerman.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To determine whether CA 125 measurement is superior to ultrasound imaging performed by an experienced examiner for discriminating between benign and malignant adnexal lesions, and to determine whether adding CA 125 to ultrasound examination improves diagnostic performance.
METHODS: This is a prospective multicenter study (International Ovarian Tumor Analysis (IOTA) study) conducted in nine European ultrasound centers in university hospitals. Of 1149 patients with an adnexal mass examined in the IOTA study, 83 were excluded. Of the remaining 1066 patients, 809 had CA 125 results available and were included. The patients underwent preoperative serum CA 125 measurements and transvaginal ultrasound examination by an experienced ultrasound examiner blinded to CA 125 values. The examiner classified each mass as certainly or probably benign, difficult to classify, or probably or certainly malignant. The outcome measure was the sensitivity and specificity with regard to malignancy of CA 125, ultrasound imaging and their combined use, the 'gold standard' being the histological diagnosis of the adnexal mass removed surgically within 120 days after the ultrasound examination.
RESULTS: There were 242 (30%) malignancies. For 534 tumors judged to be certainly benign or certainly malignant by the ultrasound examiner the sensitivity and specificity of ultrasound examination and CA 125 (> or =35 U/mL indicating malignancy) were 97% vs. 86% (95% CI of difference, 4.7-17.2) and 99% vs. 79% (95% CI of difference, 15.7-24.2); for 209 tumors judged probably benign or probably malignant, sensitivity and specificity were 81% vs. 57% (95% CI of difference, 12.3-36.0) and 91% vs. 74% (95% CI of difference, 8.5-25.7); for 66 tumors that were difficult to classify, sensitivity and specificity were 57% vs. 39% (95% CI of difference, -9.7 to 41.1) and 74% vs. 67% (95% CI of difference, -14.6 to 27.7). Diagnostic performance deteriorated when CA 125 was used as a second-stage test after ultrasound examination.
CONCLUSIONS: Specialist ultrasound examination is superior to CA 125 for preoperative discrimination between benign and malignant adnexal masses, irrespective of the diagnostic confidence of the ultrasound examiner; adding CA 125 to ultrasound does not improve diagnostic performance. Our results indicate that greater investment in education and training in gynecological ultrasound imaging would be of value.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19585547     DOI: 10.1002/uog.6415

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol        ISSN: 0960-7692            Impact factor:   7.299


  14 in total

1.  Falsely elevated human epididymis protein 4 results and Risk of Ovarian Malignancy Algorithm in polymorbid women after solid organ transplantation: A pilot and case-control study.

Authors:  Janka Franeková; Josef Cindr; Petra Lavríková; Jitka Komrsková; Peter Sečník; Věra Lánská; Antonín Jabor
Journal:  J Clin Lab Anal       Date:  2018-03-24       Impact factor: 2.352

Review 2.  Ultrasound in gynecological cancer: is it time for re-evaluation of its uses?

Authors:  Daniela Fischerova; David Cibula
Journal:  Curr Oncol Rep       Date:  2015-06       Impact factor: 5.075

3.  Towards an evidence-based approach for diagnosis and management of adnexal masses: findings of the International Ovarian Tumour Analysis (IOTA) studies.

Authors:  J Kaijser
Journal:  Facts Views Vis Obgyn       Date:  2015

4.  Investigating the performance and cost-effectiveness of the simple ultrasound-based rules compared to the risk of malignancy index in the diagnosis of ovarian cancer (SUBSONiC-study): protocol of a prospective multicenter cohort study in the Netherlands.

Authors:  Evelyne M J Meys; Iris J G Rutten; Roy F P M Kruitwagen; Brigitte F Slangen; Martin G M Bergmans; Helen J M M Mertens; Ernst Nolting; Dieuwke Boskamp; Regina G H Beets-Tan; Toon van Gorp
Journal:  BMC Cancer       Date:  2015-06-26       Impact factor: 4.430

5.  Comparison of HE4, CA125, and Risk of Ovarian Malignancy Algorithm in the Prediction of Ovarian Cancer in Korean Women.

Authors:  Hye Yon Cho; Sung Ho Park; Young Han Park; Hong Bae Kim; Jung Bae Kang; Seung Hwa Hong; Min Sun Kyung
Journal:  J Korean Med Sci       Date:  2015-11-30       Impact factor: 2.153

Review 6.  Key findings from the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis (IOTA) study: an approach to the optimal ultrasound based characterisation of adnexal pathology.

Authors:  Jeroen Kaijser; Tom Bourne; Sylvie De Rijdt; Caroline Van Holsbeke; Ahmad Sayasneh; Lil Valentin; Ben Van Calster; Dirk Timmerman
Journal:  Australas J Ultrasound Med       Date:  2015-12-31

7.  Can Replacing CA125 with HE4 in Risk of Malignancy Indices 1-4 Improve Diagnostic Performance in the Presurgical Assessment of Adnexal Tumors?

Authors:  Nabil Abdalla; Robert Piórkowski; Paweł Stanirowski; Krzysztof Cendrowski; Włodzimierz Sawicki
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2017-11-07       Impact factor: 3.411

8.  Multicentre external validation of IOTA prediction models and RMI by operators with varied training.

Authors:  A Sayasneh; L Wynants; J Preisler; J Kaijser; S Johnson; C Stalder; R Husicka; Y Abdallah; F Raslan; A Drought; A A Smith; S Ghaem-Maghami; E Epstein; B Van Calster; D Timmerman; T Bourne
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2013-05-14       Impact factor: 7.640

9.  Malignant transformation of endometrioma in a woman with a history of ovulation induction and in vitro fertilization.

Authors:  Terri L Woodard; Awoniyi O Awonuga; Elizabeth Puscheck
Journal:  Case Rep Med       Date:  2012-12-04

10.  Usefulness of the HE4 biomarker as a second-line test in the assessment of suspicious ovarian tumors.

Authors:  Rafal Moszynski; Sebastian Szubert; Dariusz Szpurek; Slawomir Michalak; Joanna Krygowska; Stefan Sajdak
Journal:  Arch Gynecol Obstet       Date:  2013-05-31       Impact factor: 2.344

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.