Literature DB >> 25855958

Effectiveness of the risk of malignancy index and the risk of ovarian malignancy algorithm in a cohort of women with ovarian cancer: does histotype and stage matter?

Genevieve K Lennox1, Lua R Eiriksson, Clare J Reade, Felix Leung, Golnessa Mojtahedi, Eshetu G Atenafu, Sarah E Ferguson, Joan Murphy, Eleftherios P Diamandis, Vathany Kulasingam, Marcus Q Bernardini.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To examine the performance of the Risk of Malignancy Index (RMI) and Risk of Ovarian Malignancy Algorithm (ROMA) by histologic subtype and stage of disease in a cohort of women with ovarian cancer.
METHODS: All patients with confirmed ovarian cancer at the Princess Margaret Hospital between February 2011 and January 2013 were eligible for study inclusion. Preoperative cancer antigen 125, human epididymis protein 4, and ultrasound findings were reviewed, and the sensitivity and false-negative rates of the RMI and ROMA were determined by stage of disease and tumor histology.
RESULTS: A total of 131 patients with ovarian cancer were identified. High-grade serous (HGS) histology was most frequently associated with stage III/IV disease (n = 46 [72% of stage III/IV]) vs stage I (n = 5 [11% of stage I]; P < 0.0001). Clear cell (CC) and endometrioid (EC) histology presented most commonly with stage I disease (n = 9 [20%] and n = 13 [29% of stage I cases], respectively). Median cancer antigen 125 and human epididymis protein 4 values were significantly higher for HGS than for EC or CC histology. Risk of Malignancy Index II demonstrated the highest sensitivity of the 3 RMI algorithms. All RMIs and ROMA were significantly more sensitive in predicting malignancy in patients with HGS than EC or CC histology. Risk of Malignancy Index II (n = 38) and ROMA (n = 35) exhibited sensitivities of 68% and 54% and false-negative rates of 32% and 46%, respectively, for patients with stage I disease vs sensitivities of 94% and 93% and false-negative rates of 6% and 7% for patients with stage III/IV disease.
CONCLUSION: Both RMI and ROMA performed well for the detection of advanced ovarian cancer and HGS histology. These triaging algorithms do not perform well in patients with stage I disease where EC and CC histologies predominate. Clinicians should be cautious using RMI or ROMA scoring tools to triage isolated adnexal masses because many patients with stage I malignancies would be missed.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25855958     DOI: 10.1097/IGC.0000000000000442

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Gynecol Cancer        ISSN: 1048-891X            Impact factor:   3.437


  6 in total

Review 1.  Circulating biomarkers in epithelial ovarian cancer diagnosis: from present to future perspective.

Authors:  Martina Montagnana; Marco Benati; Elisa Danese
Journal:  Ann Transl Med       Date:  2017-07

2.  Validation of a Novel Biomarker Panel for the Detection of Ovarian Cancer.

Authors:  Felix Leung; Marcus Q Bernardini; Marshall D Brown; Yingye Zheng; Rafael Molina; Robert C Bast; Gerard Davis; Stefano Serra; Eleftherios P Diamandis; Vathany Kulasingam
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2016-07-22       Impact factor: 4.254

3.  A multiplex biomarker assay improves the diagnostic performance of HE4 and CA125 in ovarian tumor patients.

Authors:  Pia Leandersson; Anna Åkesson; Ingrid Hedenfalk; Susanne Malander; Christer Borgfeldt
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2020-10-19       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 4.  High-throughput approaches for precision medicine in high-grade serous ovarian cancer.

Authors:  Meinusha Govindarajan; Christoph Wohlmuth; Matthew Waas; Marcus Q Bernardini; Thomas Kislinger
Journal:  J Hematol Oncol       Date:  2020-10-09       Impact factor: 17.388

5.  SPME-LC/MS-based serum metabolomic phenotyping for distinguishing ovarian cancer histologic subtypes: a pilot study.

Authors:  Mariola Olkowicz; Hernando Rosales-Solano; Vathany Kulasingam; Janusz Pawliszyn
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2021-11-17       Impact factor: 4.379

6.  Role of Sonographic Gray-Scale Pattern Recognition in the Diagnosis of Adnexal Masses.

Authors:  Jyothi Shetty; Grishma Reddy; Deeksha Pandey
Journal:  J Clin Diagn Res       Date:  2017-09-01
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.