Article Data

  • Views 1663
  • Dowloads 138

Original Research

Open Access

Comparison of nine morphological scoring systems to detect ovarian malignancy

  • Erhan Aktürk1,*,
  • Murat Dede1
  • Müfit C. Yenen1
  • Y. Kemal Koçyiğit1
  • Ali Ergün1

1Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Gülhane Military Medical Faculty, Ankara, Turkey

DOI: 10.12892/ejgo2579.2015 Vol.36,Issue 3,June 2015 pp.304-308

Published: 10 June 2015

*Corresponding Author(s): Erhan Aktürk E-mail: erhnakturk@gmail.com

Abstract

Purpose of investigation: The aim of this study was to prospectively compare the diagnostic performances of nine gray-scale sonographic prediction models to detect ovarian malignancy. Materials and Methods: Clinical data of 322 women presenting with an adnexal mass were obtained and used in nine scoring systems. For each model a ROC curve demonstrating the capacity of the model to diagnose malignancy was constructed for all cases and for the subgroups of premenopause and postmenopause. The performance of each model was expressed as area under the ROC curve, sensitivity, and specificity. Results: The area under the ROC curve, sensitivity, and specificity of these models in the present study varied between 0.737 and 0.929, 70.7% and 87.9%, 60.2% and 80.3%, respectively. Conclusions: This study has revealed the usefulness of morphological scoring systems to correctly discriminate between benign and malignant pelvic masses.

Keywords

Ovarian; Ultrasonography; Mass; Model.

Cite and Share

Erhan Aktürk,Murat Dede,Müfit C. Yenen,Y. Kemal Koçyiğit,Ali Ergün. Comparison of nine morphological scoring systems to detect ovarian malignancy. European Journal of Gynaecological Oncology. 2015. 36(3);304-308.

References

[1] Finkler N.J., Benacerraf B., Lavin P.T., Wojciechowski C., Knapp R.C.: “Comparison of serum CA125, clinical impression, and ultrasound in the preoperative evaluation of ovarian masses”. Obstet. Gynecol., 1988, 72, 659.

[2] Granberg S, Norstro¨m A, Wikland M: Tumors in the lower pelvis as imaged by vaginal sonography. Gynecol Oncol 37:224 –229, 1990.

[3] Sassone A.M., Timor-Tritsch I.E., Artner A., Westhoff C., Warren W.B.: “Transvaginal sonographic characterization of ovarian disease: evaluation of a new scoring system to predict ovarian malignancy”. Obstet. Gynecol., 1991, 78, 70.

[4] DePriest P.D., Shenson D., Fried A., Hunter J.E., Andrews S.J., Gallion H.H., et al.: “A morphology index based on sonographic findings in ovarian cancer”. Gynecol. Oncol., 1993, 51, 7.

[5] Lerner J.P., Timor-Tritsch I.E., Federman A., Abramovich G.: “Transvaginal ultrasonographic characterization of ovarian masses with an improved, weighted scoring system”. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol., 1994, 170, 81.

[6] Maggino T., Gadducci A., D’Addario V., Pecorelli S., Lissoni A., Stella M., et al.: “Prospective multicenter study on CA 125 in postmenopausal pelvic masses”. Gynecol. Oncol., 1994, 54, 117.

[7] Ferrazzi E., Zanetta G., Dordoni D., Berlanda N., Mezzopane R., Lissoni G.: “Transvaginal ultrasonographic characterization of ovarian masses: comparison of five scoring systems in a multicenter study”. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol., 1997, 10, 192.

[8] Ueland F.R., DePriest P.D., Pavlik E.J., Kryscio R.J., van Nagell J.R. Jr.: “Preoperative differentiation of malignant from benign ovarian tumors: the efficacy of morphology indexing and Doppler flow sonography”. Gynecol. Oncol., 2003, 91, 46.

[9] Szpurek D., Moszynski R., Zietkowiak W., Spaczynski M., Sajdak S.: “An ultrasonographic morphological index for prediction of ovarian tumor malignancy”. Eur. J. Gynaecol. Oncol., 2005, 26, 51.

[10] Jacobs I., Oram D., Fairbanks J., Turner J., Frost C., Grudzinskas J.: “A risk of malignancy index incorporating CA125, ultrasound and menopausal status for the accurate preoperative diagnosis of ovarian cancer”. BJOG, 1990, 97, 922.

[11] Ronco D.A., Manahan K.J., Geisler J.P.: “Ovarian cancer risk assessment: a tool for preoperative assessment”. Eur. J. Obstet. Gynecol. Reprod. Biol., 2011, 158, 325. doi: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2011.05. 018. Epub 2011 Jul 28.

[12] Moore R.G., McMeekin D.S., Brown A.K., DiSilvestro P., Miller M.C., Allard W.J., et al.: “A novel multiple marker bioassay utilizing HE4 and CA125 for the prediction of ovarian cancer inpatients with a pelvic mass”. Gynecol. Oncol., 2009, 112, 40.

[13] Valentin L., Hagen B., Tingulstad S., Eik-Nes S.: “Comparison of pattern recognition and logistic regression models for discrimination between benign and malignant pelvic masses. A prospective crossvalidation”. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol., 2001, 18, 357.

[14] Serov S.F., Scully R.E., Sobin L.H.: “International histological classification of tumors, no. 9. Histological typing of ovarian tumors”. Geneva: World Health Organization, 1973.

Submission Turnaround Time

Top