Diagnostic Value of Risk of Malignancy Algorithm (ROMA) in Adnexal Masses.
Adnexal mass
CA 125
HE4
ROMA
Journal
Journal of obstetrics and gynaecology of India
ISSN: 0971-9202
Titre abrégé: J Obstet Gynaecol India
Pays: India
ID NLM: 0374763
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jun 2020
Jun 2020
Historique:
received:
06
01
2018
accepted:
01
11
2018
entrez:
2
6
2020
pubmed:
2
6
2020
medline:
2
6
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Differentiating malignancy from benign diseases is the key to successful management of adnexal masses. Risk of malignancy algorithm (ROMA) has been used for this purpose. We have prospectively studied the diagnostic value of ROMA in patients presented with adnexal masses. We prospective calculated ROMA values prior to surgery for adnexal masses. The risk calculated was then correlated with the histological findings, and results were analyzed according to menopausal status. ROMA cutoff value was determined using ROC curve, and sensitivity, specificity and predictive values were calculated. Statistics were performed on SPSS software (version 20.0). There were 94 patients with adnexal masses included in the study, 65 (69.1%) had epithelial ovarian cancer and 29 (30.9%) were diagnosed benign on histopathology. In both pre- and postmenopausal patients, ROMA values were significantly higher in patients with malignancy compared to those with benign disease ( ROMA is a useful and accurate test for differentiating epithelial ovarian cancer from benign ovarian masses. Further studies are needed to compare performance of ROMA with the Risk of Malignancy Index (RMI), CA 125 and HE4. Such comparative studies will be helpful to the clinician in deciding the best diagnostic tool for women with adnexal masses.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Differentiating malignancy from benign diseases is the key to successful management of adnexal masses. Risk of malignancy algorithm (ROMA) has been used for this purpose. We have prospectively studied the diagnostic value of ROMA in patients presented with adnexal masses.
METHODS
METHODS
We prospective calculated ROMA values prior to surgery for adnexal masses. The risk calculated was then correlated with the histological findings, and results were analyzed according to menopausal status. ROMA cutoff value was determined using ROC curve, and sensitivity, specificity and predictive values were calculated. Statistics were performed on SPSS software (version 20.0).
RESULTS
RESULTS
There were 94 patients with adnexal masses included in the study, 65 (69.1%) had epithelial ovarian cancer and 29 (30.9%) were diagnosed benign on histopathology. In both pre- and postmenopausal patients, ROMA values were significantly higher in patients with malignancy compared to those with benign disease (
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
ROMA is a useful and accurate test for differentiating epithelial ovarian cancer from benign ovarian masses. Further studies are needed to compare performance of ROMA with the Risk of Malignancy Index (RMI), CA 125 and HE4. Such comparative studies will be helpful to the clinician in deciding the best diagnostic tool for women with adnexal masses.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32476768
doi: 10.1007/s13224-019-01295-3
pii: 1295
pmc: PMC7239964
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
214-219Informations de copyright
© Federation of Obstetric & Gynecological Societies of India 2019.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Conflict of interestThe authors declare that there is no conflict of interest in the present study.
Références
JAMA. 2011 Jun 8;305(22):2295-303
pubmed: 21642681
Gynecol Oncol. 2013 Feb;128(2):233-8
pubmed: 23200911
Gynecol Oncol. 2013 Feb;128(2):239-44
pubmed: 23063998
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2011 Dec;20(12):2496-506
pubmed: 22028406
Obstet Gynecol. 2013 Aug;122(2 Pt 1):210-7
pubmed: 23969786
Clin Chem Lab Med. 2011 Mar;49(3):527-34
pubmed: 21320028
Gynecol Oncol. 2009 Feb;112(2):422-36
pubmed: 18990435
Gynecol Oncol. 2009 Jan;112(1):40-6
pubmed: 18851871
Obstet Gynecol. 2007 Jul;110(1):201-14
pubmed: 17601923
Br J Cancer. 2011 Mar 1;104(5):863-70
pubmed: 21304524
Clin Chem Lab Med. 2011 Mar;49(3):521-5
pubmed: 21288178
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2010 Apr;202(4):373.e1-9
pubmed: 20096820
Obstet Gynecol. 2011 Aug;118(2 Pt 1):280-8
pubmed: 21775843
Gynecol Oncol. 2011 Jun 1;121(3):487-91
pubmed: 21420727
Clin Chem. 2008 Dec;54(12):e11-79
pubmed: 19042984
Gynecol Oncol. 2015 Sep;138(3):640-6
pubmed: 26086566