OBJECTIVE: To determine the ability of pelvic examination, tumor marker assessment, and transvaginal ultrasonography, with selected use of Doppler ultrasonography, to predict pelvic malignancy. METHODS: Two hundred twenty-six women scheduled for operative removal of a pelvic mass were entered in the study prospectively. Each woman underwent pelvic examination, tumor marker assessment, and transvaginal ultrasonography preoperatively. Women whose gray-scale findings were suspicious for malignancy underwent Doppler ultrasonography. Suspicious findings included masses that were fixed or irregular on pelvic examination; CA 125 level greater than 35 U/mL; elevations in serum lactic dehydrogenase, alpha-fetoprotein, or hCG; and the presence of a substantial solid component on gray-scale ultrasonography. Suspicious Doppler findings included intratumoral color flow, pulsatility index less than 1.0, or resistance index 0.4 or lower. The findings were correlated with the presence of malignancy. RESULTS: If all three indicators (examination, tumor marker assessment, and gray-scale ultrasound findings) were nonsuspicious, 99% of premenopausal women and 100% of postmenopausal women had benign masses. If all three indicators were suspicious, 77% of premenopausal women and 83% of postmenopausal women had malignant tumors. Logistic regression identified ultrasound impression and tumor size to be significant predictors of malignancy in premenopausal women, whereas CA 125 level and ultrasound impression were significant in postmenopausal women. In patients with suspicious gray-scale findings, recategorization based on Doppler findings resulted in inferior diagnostic indices. CONCLUSIONS: Ultrasonographic tumor size and appearance are the best predictors of pelvic malignancy in premenopausal women, whereas CA 125 level and ultrasonographic appearance are the best predictors in postmenopausal women. Neither color nor spectral Doppler is useful in this setting.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the ability of pelvic examination, tumor marker assessment, and transvaginal ultrasonography, with selected use of Doppler ultrasonography, to predict pelvic malignancy. METHODS: Two hundred twenty-six women scheduled for operative removal of a pelvic mass were entered in the study prospectively. Each woman underwent pelvic examination, tumor marker assessment, and transvaginal ultrasonography preoperatively. Women whose gray-scale findings were suspicious for malignancy underwent Doppler ultrasonography. Suspicious findings included masses that were fixed or irregular on pelvic examination; CA 125 level greater than 35 U/mL; elevations in serum lactic dehydrogenase, alpha-fetoprotein, or hCG; and the presence of a substantial solid component on gray-scale ultrasonography. Suspicious Doppler findings included intratumoral color flow, pulsatility index less than 1.0, or resistance index 0.4 or lower. The findings were correlated with the presence of malignancy. RESULTS: If all three indicators (examination, tumor marker assessment, and gray-scale ultrasound findings) were nonsuspicious, 99% of premenopausal women and 100% of postmenopausal women had benign masses. If all three indicators were suspicious, 77% of premenopausal women and 83% of postmenopausal women had malignant tumors. Logistic regression identified ultrasound impression and tumor size to be significant predictors of malignancy in premenopausal women, whereas CA 125 level and ultrasound impression were significant in postmenopausal women. In patients with suspicious gray-scale findings, recategorization based on Doppler findings resulted in inferior diagnostic indices. CONCLUSIONS: Ultrasonographic tumor size and appearance are the best predictors of pelvic malignancy in premenopausal women, whereas CA 125 level and ultrasonographic appearance are the best predictors in postmenopausal women. Neither color nor spectral Doppler is useful in this setting.
Authors: Arthur C Fleischer; Andrej Lyshchik; Makiko Hirari; Ryan D Moore; Richard G Abramson; David A Fishman Journal: J Oncol Date: 2012-04-26 Impact factor: 4.375