OBJECTIVE: We sought to compare the Risk of Malignancy Index (RMI) to the Risk of Ovarian Malignancy Algorithm (ROMA) to predict epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) in women with a pelvic mass. STUDY DESIGN: In all, 457 women with imaging results from ultrasound, computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, and serum HE4 and CA125 determined prior to surgery for pelvic mass were evaluable. RMI values were determined using CA125, imaging score, and menopausal status. ROMA values were determined using HE4, CA125, and menopausal status. RESULTS: At a set specificity of 75%, ROMA had a sensitivity of 94.3% and RMI had a sensitivity of 84.6% for distinguishing benign status from EOC (P = .0029). In patients with stage I and II disease, ROMA achieved a sensitivity of 85.3% compared with 64.7% for RMI (P < .0001). CONCLUSION: The dual marker algorithm utilizing HE4 and CA125 to calculate a ROMA value achieves a significantly higher sensitivity for identifying women with EOC than does RMI. Copyright 2010 Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.
OBJECTIVE: We sought to compare the Risk of Malignancy Index (RMI) to the Risk of Ovarian Malignancy Algorithm (ROMA) to predict epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) in women with a pelvic mass. STUDY DESIGN: In all, 457 women with imaging results from ultrasound, computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, and serum HE4 and CA125 determined prior to surgery for pelvic mass were evaluable. RMI values were determined using CA125, imaging score, and menopausal status. ROMA values were determined using HE4, CA125, and menopausal status. RESULTS: At a set specificity of 75%, ROMA had a sensitivity of 94.3% and RMI had a sensitivity of 84.6% for distinguishing benign status from EOC (P = .0029). In patients with stage I and II disease, ROMA achieved a sensitivity of 85.3% compared with 64.7% for RMI (P < .0001). CONCLUSION: The dual marker algorithm utilizing HE4 and CA125 to calculate a ROMA value achieves a significantly higher sensitivity for identifying women with EOC than does RMI. Copyright 2010 Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.
Authors: Mirjam J A Engelen; Henrike E Kos; Pax H B Willemse; Jan G Aalders; Elisabeth G E de Vries; Michael Schaapveld; Renee Otter; Ate G J van der Zee Journal: Cancer Date: 2006-02-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Michael E Carney; Johnathan M Lancaster; Clyde Ford; Alexander Tsodikov; Charles L Wiggins Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2002-01 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Craig C Earle; Deborah Schrag; Bridget A Neville; K Robin Yabroff; Marie Topor; Angela Fahey; Edward L Trimble; Diane C Bodurka; Robert E Bristow; Michael Carney; Joan L Warren Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2006-02-01 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Richard G Moore; D Scott McMeekin; Amy K Brown; Paul DiSilvestro; M Craig Miller; W Jeffrey Allard; Walter Gajewski; Robert Kurman; Robert C Bast; Steven J Skates Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2008-10-12 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Richard G Moore; Amy K Brown; M Craig Miller; Steven Skates; W Jeffrey Allard; Thorsten Verch; Margaret Steinhoff; Geralyn Messerlian; Paul DiSilvestro; C O Granai; Robert C Bast Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2007-12-03 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: R C Bast; T L Klug; E St John; E Jenison; J M Niloff; H Lazarus; R S Berkowitz; T Leavitt; C T Griffiths; L Parker; V R Zurawski; R C Knapp Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1983-10-13 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Barbara A Goff; Barbara J Matthews; Eric H Larson; C Holly A Andrilla; Michelle Wynn; Denise M Lishner; Laura-Mae Baldwin Journal: Cancer Date: 2007-05-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Khawla Al Musalhi; Manal Al Kindi; Faiza Al Aisary; Fatma Ramadhan; Thuraya Al Rawahi; Khalsa Al Hatali; Waad-Allah Mula-Abed Journal: Oman Med J Date: 2016-09
Authors: Scott R Kronewitter; Maria Lorna A De Leoz; John S Strum; Hyun Joo An; Lauren M Dimapasoc; Andrés Guerrero; Suzanne Miyamoto; Carlito B Lebrilla; Gary S Leiserowitz Journal: Proteomics Date: 2012-08 Impact factor: 3.984