Koray Aslan1, M Anıl Onan2, Canan Yilmaz3, Neslihan Bukan4, Mehmet Erdem5. 1. Department of Gynecologic Oncology, Zekai Tahir Burak Women's Health Training and Research Hospital, Faculty of Medicine, University of Health Sciences, Ankara, Turkey. Electronic address: aslan_koray@yahoo.com. 2. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine, Gazi University, Ankara, Turkey. Electronic address: maonan@gazi.edu.tr. 3. Department of Medical Biochemistry, Faculty of Medicine, Gazi University, Ankara, Turkey. Electronic address: drcananyilmaz@yahoo.com. 4. Department of Medical Biochemistry, Faculty of Medicine, Gazi University, Ankara, Turkey. Electronic address: nbukan@gazi.edu.tr. 5. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine, Gazi University, Ankara, Turkey. Electronic address: erdemom@hotmail.com.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the value of ultrasonography (USG) score, cancer antigen 125 (CA 125), human epididymis protein 4 (HE 4) and risk of malignancy algorithm (ROMA) in differential diagnosis ovarian masses. METHODS: This prospective study was conducted between May 2012 and September 2013 in a single center. Eighty-four women who had an ovarian mass on imaging and underwent surgery were included. The diagnostic performances of CA 125, HE 4, ROMA score and USG score for ovarian cancer were analyzed. RESULTS: There were 65 (77.3 %) women with benign ovarian tumors and 19 (22.7 %) women with malignant ovarian tumors. According to receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis; area under curve (AUC) was 0.874 for the USG score (p < 0.001), 0.794 for the CA 125 (p < 0.001), 0.9 for the HE 4 (p < 0.001), and 0.893 for the ROMA (p < 0.001). The USG score ≥ 3 had a sensitivity of 68.4 % and specificity of 90.7 %.The CA 125 ≥ 35 IU/l, had a sensitivity of 84.2 %, specificity of 49.2 %, the HE 4 ≥ 150 pM, had a sensitivity of 84.2 %, specificity of 98.4 % and the ROMA score had a sensitivity of 84.2 %, specificity of 75.3 % CONCLUSION: The HE 4 had higher accuracy than ROMA score, USG score and CA 125, in predicting ovarian cancer. Besides, the USG score was a simple and achievable method with acceptable performance.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the value of ultrasonography (USG) score, cancer antigen 125 (CA 125), humanepididymis protein 4 (HE 4) and risk of malignancy algorithm (ROMA) in differential diagnosis ovarian masses. METHODS: This prospective study was conducted between May 2012 and September 2013 in a single center. Eighty-four women who had an ovarian mass on imaging and underwent surgery were included. The diagnostic performances of CA 125, HE 4, ROMA score and USG score for ovarian cancer were analyzed. RESULTS: There were 65 (77.3 %) women with benign ovarian tumors and 19 (22.7 %) women with malignant ovarian tumors. According to receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis; area under curve (AUC) was 0.874 for the USG score (p < 0.001), 0.794 for the CA 125 (p < 0.001), 0.9 for the HE 4 (p < 0.001), and 0.893 for the ROMA (p < 0.001). The USG score ≥ 3 had a sensitivity of 68.4 % and specificity of 90.7 %.The CA 125 ≥ 35 IU/l, had a sensitivity of 84.2 %, specificity of 49.2 %, the HE 4 ≥ 150 pM, had a sensitivity of 84.2 %, specificity of 98.4 % and the ROMA score had a sensitivity of 84.2 %, specificity of 75.3 % CONCLUSION: The HE 4 had higher accuracy than ROMA score, USG score and CA 125, in predicting ovarian cancer. Besides, the USG score was a simple and achievable method with acceptable performance.