Article Data

  • Views 252
  • Dowloads 129

Original Research

Open Access

Correlation of cancer risk evaluation and early detection (CADET) scores with abnormal ultrasonographic ovarian findings

  • J. Hasson1
  • G. Rattan1
  • I. Heller2
  • J.B. Lessing1
  • D. Grisaru1,*,

1Departments of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Tel-Aviv Sourasky Medical Center, Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel-Aviv University, Tel-Aviv, Israel

2Internal Medicine “H”, Tel-Aviv Sourasky Medical Center Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel-Aviv University, Tel-Aviv , Israel

DOI: 10.12892/ejgo201203265 Vol.33,Issue 3,May 2012 pp.265-268

Published: 10 May 2012

*Corresponding Author(s): D. Grisaru E-mail: grisaro@post.tau.ac.il

Abstract

Objective: To determine the utility of a modified version of ovarian cancer-focused cancer risk evaluation and early detection (CADET) scores as a screening tool for ultrasonographic ovarian findings. Study design: Prospective pilot study. Main outcome measures: CADET scores were compared with abnormal ultrasonographic ovarian findings of peri- and postmenopausal women who attended their gynecologist for a routine check-up. The women filled in the CADET questionnaire before seeing their gynecologists who were blinded to the CADET results. The women whom they referred for pelvic transvaginal ultrasonographic examination comprised the study group. The results of their scans were compared with their CADET scores. Results: Of the 181 peri- and postmenopausal women who were candidates for this study, 154 were referred for ultrasonography, of whom 38 (24%, Group A) had abnormal ovarian scans (30 simple cysts and 8 complex findings). The other 116 (76%) women had normal sonograms (Group B). Demographic characteristics were similar for both groups. Thirteen Group A women (34%) and 52 Group B women (45%) had positive CADET scores (p = NS). The average group CADET scores were also not significantly different (0.8 +/- 1.7 for Group A and 1.7 +/- 2.5 for Group B). Conclusion: CADET scores did not correlate with abnormal ultrasonographic ovarian findings.


Cite and Share

J. Hasson,G. Rattan,I. Heller,J.B. Lessing,D. Grisaru. Correlation of cancer risk evaluation and early detection (CADET) scores with abnormal ultrasonographic ovarian findings. European Journal of Gynaecological Oncology. 2012. 33(3);265-268.

References

[1] Jemal A., Clegg L.X., Ward E., Ries L.A., Wu X., Jamison P.M.: “Annual report to the nation on the status of cancer, 1975-2001, with a special feature regarding survival”. Cancer 2004, 101, 3.

[2] Daly M.B., Ozols R.F.: “Symptoms of ovarian cancer – where to set the bar?”. JAMA, 2004, 291, 2755.

[3] Karlan K.B.: “Screening for ovarian cancer: what are the optimal surrogate endpoints for clinical trials?”. J. Cell. Biochem. Suppl., 1995, 23, 227.

[4] De Priest P.D., DeSimone C.P.: “Ultrasound screening for the early detection of ovarian cancer”. J. Clin. Oncol., 2003, 21, 194.

[5] Bast R.C.: “Status of tumor markers in ovarian cancer screening”. J. Clin. Oncol., 2003, 21, 200s.

[6] National Institutes of Health Consensus Development Conference Statement. Ovarian cancer: screening, treatment, and follow-up. Gynecol. Oncol., 1994, 55, S4-14. Review.

[7] Olson S.H., Mignone L., Nakraseive C., Caputo T.A., Barakat R.R., Harlap S.: “Symptoms of ovarian cancer”. Obstet. Gynecol., 2001, 98, 212.

[8] Eastman P.: “Task force issues new screening guidelines”. J. Natl. Cancer Inst., 1996, 88, 74.

[9] ACOG Committee on Gynecologic Practice. The role of the generalist obstetrician-gynecologist in the early detection of ovarian cancer. Int. J. Gynaecol. Obstet., 2003, 80, 235.

[10] Vine M.F., Calingaert B., Berchuck A., Schildkraut J.M.: “Characterization of prediagnostic symptoms among primary epithelial ovarian cancer cases and controls”. Gynecol. Oncol., 2003, 90, 75.

[11] Bell R., Petticrew M., Sheldon T.: “The performance of screening tests for ovarian cancer: results of a systematic review”. Br. J. Obstet. Gynaecol., 1998, 105, 1136.

[12] Friedman G.D., Skilling J.S., Udaltsova N.V., Smith L.H.: “Early symptoms of ovarian cancer: a case-control study without recall bias”. Fam. Pract., 2005, 22, 548.

[13] Smith L.H., Morris C.R., Yasmeen S., Parikh-Patel A., Cress R.D., Romano P.S.: “Ovarian cancer: can we make the clinical diagnosis earlier?”. Cancer, 2005, 104, 1398.

[14] Goff B.A., Mandel L.S., Drescher C.W., Urban N., Gough S., Schurman K.M. et al.: “Development of an ovarian cancer symptom index: possibilities for earlier detection”. Cancer, 2007, 109, 221.

[15] Goff B.A., Matthews B.J., Wynn M., Muntz H.G., Lishner D.M., Baldwin L.M.: “Ovarian cancer: patterns of surgical care across the United States”. Gynecol. Oncol., 2006, 103, 383.

[16] Webb P.M., Purdie D.M., Grover S., Jordan S., Dick M.L., Green A.C.: “Symptoms and diagnosis of borderline, early and advanced epithelial ovarian cancer”. Gynecol. Oncol., 2004, 92, 232.

[17] Heller I., Isakov A., Villa Y., Natour H., Inbar M., Fuchs J. et al.: “Evaluation of CaDet, a computer-based clinical decision support system for early cancer detection: a comparison with the performance of clinicians”. Cancer Detect. Prev., 2004, 28, 352.

[18] Fuchs J., Heller I., Topilsky M., Inbar M.: “CaDet, a computerbased clinical decision support system for early cancer detection”. Cancer Detect. Prev., 1999, 23, 78.

[19] Kim M.K., Kim K., Kim S.M., Kim J.W., Park N.H., Song Y.S. et al.: “A hospital based case control study of identifying ovarian cancer using symptom index”. J. Gynecol. Oncol., 2009, 20, 238.

[20] Pavlic E.J., Saunders B.A., Doran S., McHugh K.W., Ueland F.R., Desimone C.P. et al.: “The search for meaning - Symptoms and transvaginal sonography screening for ovarian cancer”. Cancer, 2009, 115, 3689.

Abstracted / indexed in

Science Citation Index Expanded (SciSearch) Created as SCI in 1964, Science Citation Index Expanded now indexes over 9,500 of the world’s most impactful journals across 178 scientific disciplines. More than 53 million records and 1.18 billion cited references date back from 1900 to present.

Biological Abstracts Easily discover critical journal coverage of the life sciences with Biological Abstracts, produced by the Web of Science Group, with topics ranging from botany to microbiology to pharmacology. Including BIOSIS indexing and MeSH terms, specialized indexing in Biological Abstracts helps you to discover more accurate, context-sensitive results.

Google Scholar Google Scholar is a freely accessible web search engine that indexes the full text or metadata of scholarly literature across an array of publishing formats and disciplines.

JournalSeek Genamics JournalSeek is the largest completely categorized database of freely available journal information available on the internet. The database presently contains 39226 titles. Journal information includes the description (aims and scope), journal abbreviation, journal homepage link, subject category and ISSN.

Current Contents - Clinical Medicine Current Contents - Clinical Medicine provides easy access to complete tables of contents, abstracts, bibliographic information and all other significant items in recently published issues from over 1,000 leading journals in clinical medicine.

BIOSIS Previews BIOSIS Previews is an English-language, bibliographic database service, with abstracts and citation indexing. It is part of Clarivate Analytics Web of Science suite. BIOSIS Previews indexes data from 1926 to the present.

Journal Citation Reports/Science Edition Journal Citation Reports/Science Edition aims to evaluate a journal’s value from multiple perspectives including the journal impact factor, descriptive data about a journal’s open access content as well as contributing authors, and provide readers a transparent and publisher-neutral data & statistics information about the journal.

Submission Turnaround Time

Conferences

Top