| Literature DB >> 32347750 |
Milan Terzic1,2,3, Gulzhanat Aimagambetova4, Melanie Norton5, Luigi Della Corte6, Alejandro Marín-Buck7,8, Juan Francisco Lisón9,10, Juan José Amer-Cuenca11, Gabriella Zito12, Simone Garzon13, Salvatore Caruso14, Agnese Maria Chiara Rapisarda14, Antonio Cianci14.
Abstract
Adnexal masses are a common finding in women, with 20% of them developing at least one pelvic mass during their lifetime. There are more than 30 different subtypes of adnexal tumours, with multiple different subcategories, and the correct characterisation of the pelvic masses is of paramount importance to guide the correct management. On that basis, different algorithms and scoring systems have been developed to guide the clinical assessment. The first scoring system implemented into the clinical practice was the Risk of Malignancy Index, which combines ultrasound evaluation, menopausal status, and serum CA-125 levels. Today, current guidelines regarding female patients with adnexal masses include the application of International Ovarian Tumours Analysis simple rules, logistic regression model 1 (LR1) and LR2, OVERA, cancer ovarii non-invasive assessment of treating strategy, and assessment of Different Neoplasias in the adnexa. In this scenario, the choice of the scoring system for the discrimination between benign and malignant ovarian tumours can be complex when approaching patients with adnexal masses. This review aims to summarise the available evidence regarding the different scoring systems to provide a complete overview of the topic.Entities:
Keywords: Adnexal mass; CPH-I; IOTA; OVA1; RMI; ovarian cancer
Year: 2020 PMID: 32347750 DOI: 10.1080/01443615.2020.1732892
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Obstet Gynaecol ISSN: 0144-3615 Impact factor: 1.246