The Comparison of Pelvic Mass Score and Risk of Malignancy Index-3 in Discrimination of Benign and Malignant Adnexal Masses.
Adnexal mass
pelvic mass score
risk of malignancy index
Journal
Sisli Etfal Hastanesi tip bulteni
ISSN: 1302-7123
Titre abrégé: Sisli Etfal Hastan Tip Bul
Pays: Turkey
ID NLM: 9424130
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2020
2020
Historique:
received:
15
11
2018
accepted:
14
01
2019
entrez:
28
12
2020
pubmed:
29
12
2020
medline:
29
12
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Discrimination of benign and malignant adnexal masses is crucial for the follow-up and prognosis of the patient. Since each modality alone does not have enough sensitivity, the combination of all methods called multimodal screening is currently being used. In this study, we aimed to compare pelvic mass score (PMS) and the risk of malignancy index (RMI-3) scoring systems in determining the malignant potential of adnexal masses. In this prospective observational study, 40 patients between the age of 15-79 who were diagnosed as an adnexal mass were included between March and October 2016. Patients were classified as benign (n=20) and malignant (n=20). The age, gravida, parity, findings of a pelvic examination, medical and family history, laboratory parameters, sonographic findings, histopathological results, PMS and RMI-3 scores of the patients were recorded. The mean age, CA-125 levels, Sassone scores and ultrasonography scores of patients were higher in malignant cases, whereas the resistance index was lower. Both RMI-3 and PMS scores were higher in the malignant group (1728.14±325.3 vs. 36.27±31.01, p<0.001 and 55.31±40.96 vs. 9.91±5.29, p<0.001, respectively). Receiver operating curve for the predictive value of PMS to diagnose malignancy was performed and a cut-off value of 14 was determined with the area under the curve (AUC) 0.955 (p<0.001). The sensitivity was 95%, specificity was 80%, positive and negative predictive values were 82.6% and 94.1%. Likewise, the discriminative value of RMI-3 to diagnose malignancy was evaluated by the ROC curve. AUC for RMI-3 was 0.930 with a sensitivity of 95%, the specificity of 75%, the positive predictive value of 79.1% and negative predictive value of 93.7% with a cut-off value of >53.2 (p<0.001). Age, menopause status, tumor markers and sonographic parameters may be beneficial alone for determining malignancy, whereas the scoring systems integrating all the parameters are more powerful. According to our findings, PMS is more sensitive and more practical than the RMI-3 scoring system.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33364892
doi: 10.14744/SEMB.2019.67299
pii: MBSEH-54-490
pmc: PMC7751244
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
490-496Informations de copyright
Copyright: © 2020 by The Medical Bulletin of Sisli Etfal Hospital.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Conflict of Interest: None declared.
Références
Gynecol Oncol. 2000 Jun;77(3):410-2
pubmed: 10831351
J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2008 Jun;34(3):364-70
pubmed: 18686352
Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2004 Jun;85(3):255-8
pubmed: 15145261
Br J Cancer. 2000 May;82(9):1535-8
pubmed: 10789720
Gynecol Oncol. 2001 May;81(2):225-9
pubmed: 11330953
Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1999 Jun;106(6):524-7
pubmed: 10426607
Chin Med J (Engl). 2003 Mar;116(3):396-9
pubmed: 12781045
J Clin Ultrasound. 2013 Jun;41(5):269-74
pubmed: 23504994
Medicine (Baltimore). 2018 Aug;97(31):e11762
pubmed: 30075600
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1995 Feb;164(2):381-6
pubmed: 7839975
Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2004 Mar;269(3):176-80
pubmed: 14557888
Radiology. 1999 Jul;212(1):19-27
pubmed: 10405715
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2009 Feb;142(2):99-105
pubmed: 18995946
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1994 Jan;170(1 Pt 1):81-5
pubmed: 8296849
Gynecol Oncol. 2000 Jun;77(3):454-9
pubmed: 10831359
Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1996 Aug;103(8):826-31
pubmed: 8760716
Obstet Gynecol. 1995 Jan;85(1):33-6
pubmed: 7800320
CA Cancer J Clin. 2001 Jan-Feb;51(1):15-36
pubmed: 11577478
Gynecol Oncol. 2003 Jul;90(1):109-12
pubmed: 12821350
Obstet Gynecol. 1999 Mar;93(3):448-52
pubmed: 10074998
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1991 Sep;165(3):502-5
pubmed: 1892173
Minerva Ginecol. 2001 Feb;53(1):1-11
pubmed: 11279390
Oncologist. 2002;7(5):437-43
pubmed: 12401906
J Ultrasound Med. 1991 Jun;10(6):295-7
pubmed: 1895367
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1994 Jun;162(6):1355-9
pubmed: 8191998
Obstet Gynecol. 1992 Jul;80(1):14-8
pubmed: 1603484
Obstet Gynecol. 1991 Jul;78(1):70-6
pubmed: 2047071
Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1990 Oct;97(10):922-9
pubmed: 2223684
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2011 Jul;157(1):84-8
pubmed: 21440361
Semin Surg Oncol. 2000 Jul-Aug;19(1):3-10
pubmed: 10883018