1,138 women with adnexal mass: pathologic findings according to age

Purpose of investigation: Influence of the patients’ age are not well established to predict the malignancy potential of adnexal masses. This study was conducted to evaluate the impact of women’s age on both histopathology and malignancy potential of adnexal masses. Materials and Methods: This is a retrospective chart review study. Patients who were operated for suspected adnexal masses were included in the study. Malignancy potentials of tumors were divided in benign and at least borderline in univariate and multivariate analyses. Univariate analyses and RR calculations were performed according to malignancy potential for age, serum cancer antigen-125 (CA-125) levels and menopause status. Results: A total of 1,138 women were included for this study; median age was 39 (16-92) years. Patients > 50 years had 5.920 times higher risk (95% CI 4.091-8.566; p = 0.0001) of having at least borderline tumor compared the younger group. The risk of at least borderline pathology was calculated as 3.723 (95% CI 2.595-5.342; p = 0.0001) in patients with CA 125 ≥ 35 IU/ml compared to the others. In multivariate analyses, only ≥ 35 IU/ml CA 125 level and > 50 years age groups were defined as independent variables for having at least borderline tumor. (OR: 4.456, 95% CI 2.982-6.659, p = 0.0001 and OR: 3.134, 95% CI 1.435-6.843, p = 0.004, respectively). Conclusion: In this study; the age of > 50 years was detected as an independent factor for having at least borderline pathology for adnexal masses. The data from these results might be used as a differential diagnostic tool in a new combination for benign and malignant adnexal masses in future studies.

Age; Menopausal status; CA-125 levels.

[1] Simsek H.S., Tokmak A, Ozgu E, Doganay M, Danısman N, Erkaya S, et al.: “Role of a risk of malignancy index in clinical approaches to adnexial masses”. Asian Pac. J. Cancer Prev., 2014, 15, 7793.

[2] Disaia J.P., Creasman W.T: “The Adnexal Mass”. In: Clinical Gynecologic Oncology. 8thed. Philadelphia: Elsevier Saunders, 2012, 212.

[3] Jacobs I., Oram D., Fairbanks J., Turner J., Frost C., Grudzinskas J.G.: “A risk of malignancy index incorporating CA 125, ultrasound and menopausal status for the accurate preoperative diagnosis of ovarian cancer”. Br. J. Obstet. Gynaeco1., 1990, l97, 922.

[4] Tingulstad S., Hagen B., Skjeldestad F., Halvorsen T., Nustad K., Onsrud M.: “The risk-of-malignancy index to evaluate potential ovarian cancers in local hospital”. Obstet. Gynecol., 1999, 93, 448.

[5] Tingulstad S., Hagen B., Skjeldestad F., Onsrud M., Kiserud T., Halvosen T.: “Evaluation of a risk of malignancy index based on serum CA 125, ultrasound findings and menopausal status in the preoperative diagnosis of pelvic masses”. Br. J. Obstet. Gynaecol., 1996, 103, 826.

[6] Chia Y.N., Marsden D.E., Robertson G., Hacker N.F: “Triage of ovarian masses”. ANZJ. Obstet. Gynaecol., 2008, 48, 322.

[7] Yamamoto Y., Yamada R., Oguri H., Maeda N., Fukaya T.: “Comparison of four malignancy risk indices in the preoperative evaluation of patients with pelvic masses”. Eur. J. Obstet. Gynecol. Reprod. Biol., 2009, 144, 163.

[8] Norris H.J., Jensen R.D: “Relative frequency of ovarian neoplasms in children and adolescents”. Cancer, 1972, 30, 713.

[9] Kinkel K., Lu Y., Mehdizade A., Pelte M.F., Hricak H.: “Indeterminate ovarian mass at US: incremental value of second imaging test for characterization— meta-analysis and Bayesian analysis”. Radiology, 2005,236, 85.

[10] Terzic M., Dotlic J., Brndusic N., Arsenovic N., Likic I., Ladjevic N., et al.: “Histopathological diagnoses of adnexal masses: which parameters are relevant in preoperative assessment?” Ginekol. Pol., 2013, 84, 700.

[11] Clarke-Pearson D.L: “Screening for ovarian cancer”. N. Engl. J. Med., 2009, 361, 170.

[12] Terzic M., Dotlic J., Likic I., Brndusic N., Pilic I., Ladjevic N., et al.: “Risk of malignancy index validity assessment in premenopausal and postmenopausal women with adnexal tumor”. Taiwan J. Obstet. Gynecol., 2013, 52, 253.

[13] Malkasian G.D., Knapp R.C., Lavin P.T., Zurawski V.R., Podratz K.C., Stanhope C.R: “Preoperative evaluation of serum CA 125 levels in premenopausal and postmenopausal patients with pelvic masses: discrimination of benign from malignant disease”. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol., 1988, 159, 341.

[14] Yavuzcan A., Caglar M., Ozgu E., Ustun Y., Dilbaz S., Ozdemir I., et al.: “Should Cut-Off Values of the Risk of Malignancy Index be Changed for Evaluation of Adnexal Masses in Asian and Pacific Populations?” Asian Pac. J. Cancer Prev., 2013, 14, 5455.

[15] Mancuso A., De Vivo A., Triolo O., Irato S.: “The role of transvaginal ultrasonography and serum Ca125 assay combined with age and hormonal state in the differential diagnosis of pelvic masses”. Eur. J. Gynaecol. Oncol., 2004, 25, 207.

[16] Heilbrun M.E., Olpin J, Shaaban A: “Imaging of benign adnexal masses: characteristic presentations on ultrasound, computed tomography, and magnetic resonance imaging”. Clin. Obstet. Gynecol., 2009, 52, 21.

[17] Shaaban A., Maryam R.: “Ovarian cancer: detection and radiologic staging”. Clin. Obstet. Gynecol., 2009, 52, 73.

[18] Gostout B.S., Brewer Molly A.D: “Guidelines for referral of the patient with an adnexal mass”. Clin. Obstet. Gynecol., 2006, 49, 448.

[19] 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 cross validation”. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol., 2001, 18, 357.

[20] Valentin L., Ameye L., Jurkovic D., Metzger U., Lécuru F., Huffel S.V., et al.: “Which extrauterine pelvic masses are difficult to correctly classify as benign or malignant on the basis of ultrasound findings and is there a way of making a correct diagnosis?” Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol., 2006, 27, 438.

[21] Valentin L., Ameye L., Franchi D., Guerriero S., Jurkovic D., Savelli L., et al.: “Risk of malignancy in unilocular cysts: a study of 1148 adnexal masses classified as unilocular cysts at transvaginal ultrasound and review of the literature”. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol., 2013, 41, 80.

[22] Jacobs I., Bast R.C: “The CA 125 tumour associated antigen: a review of the literature”. Hum Reprod., 1989, 4, 1.

[23] Karadag B., Kocak M., Kayıkcioglu F., Ercan F., Dilbaz B., Kose M.F., et al.: “Risk for Malignant and Borderline Ovarian Neoplasms following basic preoperative evaluation by ultrasonography, Ca125 level and age”. Asian Pac. J. Cancer Prev., 2014, 15, 8489.