预测恶性卵巢肿瘤的卵巢恶性肿瘤风险算法和盆腔肿块评分:一项前瞻性比较研究。

IF 1.3 Q3 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING
Journal of Ultrasonography Pub Date : 2024-02-07 eCollection Date: 2024-02-01 DOI:10.15557/jou.2024.0001
Mohamed A Ali, Mohamed S Sweed, Eman A NasrElDin, Walaa E Ahmed, Gihan E ElHawwary
{"title":"预测恶性卵巢肿瘤的卵巢恶性肿瘤风险算法和盆腔肿块评分:一项前瞻性比较研究。","authors":"Mohamed A Ali, Mohamed S Sweed, Eman A NasrElDin, Walaa E Ahmed, Gihan E ElHawwary","doi":"10.15557/jou.2024.0001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>Ovarian cancer is the seventh most common female cancer worldwide. Nevertheless, there is no available universal screening method for malignant ovarian masses. This study compares the value of the Risk of Ovarian Malignancy Algorithm (ROMA) and Pelvic Mass Score (PMS) scoring systems in the diagnosis of malignant ovarian masses.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>This prospective comparative study was conducted from March 2021 until April 2022. A total of 258 women diagnosed with ovarian mass and eligible for surgical intervention according to institutional guidelines were enrolled in the study. Ultrasound was performed for the assessment of masses, ascites and metastases, also color flow Doppler was done to measure the resistance index of the mass vasculature. Preoperative venous blood samples were collected to measure CA 125 and HE4. PMS and ROMA scoring systems were calculated for each patient. All women were subjected to a surgical intervention (according to applicable institutional guidelines), using either open or laparoscopic techniques. Histopathological examination of the removed specimens was done, and in line with the recognized gold standard, the results were compared with the pre-operative diagnosis of both scoring systems.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Both PMS and ROMA showed a high predictive probability for ovarian malignancies (AUC = 0.93, sensitivity = 83.3%, specificity = 90.37%; AUC = 0.91, sensitivity = 84.4%, specificity = 95.56%, respectively), yet no statistical significant difference was found between the two scoring systems (<i>p</i> = 0.353, 95% CI -0.025 to 0.070).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Both PMS and ROMA seem to be promising scoring systems for discriminating benign from malignant ovarian masses, but more research is needed to determine the optimum diagnostic pathway, especially one yielding the least false-negative results.</p>","PeriodicalId":45612,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Ultrasonography","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10850940/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Risk of Ovarian Malignancy Algorithm and Pelvic Mass Score for the prediction of malignant ovarian tumors: a prospective comparative study.\",\"authors\":\"Mohamed A Ali, Mohamed S Sweed, Eman A NasrElDin, Walaa E Ahmed, Gihan E ElHawwary\",\"doi\":\"10.15557/jou.2024.0001\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>Ovarian cancer is the seventh most common female cancer worldwide. Nevertheless, there is no available universal screening method for malignant ovarian masses. This study compares the value of the Risk of Ovarian Malignancy Algorithm (ROMA) and Pelvic Mass Score (PMS) scoring systems in the diagnosis of malignant ovarian masses.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>This prospective comparative study was conducted from March 2021 until April 2022. A total of 258 women diagnosed with ovarian mass and eligible for surgical intervention according to institutional guidelines were enrolled in the study. Ultrasound was performed for the assessment of masses, ascites and metastases, also color flow Doppler was done to measure the resistance index of the mass vasculature. Preoperative venous blood samples were collected to measure CA 125 and HE4. PMS and ROMA scoring systems were calculated for each patient. All women were subjected to a surgical intervention (according to applicable institutional guidelines), using either open or laparoscopic techniques. Histopathological examination of the removed specimens was done, and in line with the recognized gold standard, the results were compared with the pre-operative diagnosis of both scoring systems.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Both PMS and ROMA showed a high predictive probability for ovarian malignancies (AUC = 0.93, sensitivity = 83.3%, specificity = 90.37%; AUC = 0.91, sensitivity = 84.4%, specificity = 95.56%, respectively), yet no statistical significant difference was found between the two scoring systems (<i>p</i> = 0.353, 95% CI -0.025 to 0.070).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Both PMS and ROMA seem to be promising scoring systems for discriminating benign from malignant ovarian masses, but more research is needed to determine the optimum diagnostic pathway, especially one yielding the least false-negative results.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":45612,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Ultrasonography\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-02-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10850940/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Ultrasonography\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.15557/jou.2024.0001\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/2/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Ultrasonography","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.15557/jou.2024.0001","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/2/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:卵巢癌是全球第七大常见女性癌症。然而,目前还没有通用的恶性卵巢肿块筛查方法。本研究比较了卵巢恶性肿瘤风险算法(ROMA)和盆腔肿块评分(PMS)评分系统在诊断恶性卵巢肿块方面的价值:这项前瞻性比较研究于2021年3月至2022年4月进行。共有 258 名根据机构指南确诊为卵巢肿块并符合手术治疗条件的妇女参与了这项研究。超声波用于评估肿块、腹水和转移灶,彩色血流多普勒用于测量肿块血管的阻力指数。收集术前静脉血样本以测量 CA 125 和 HE4。为每位患者计算PMS和ROMA评分系统。所有女性都接受了外科手术(根据适用的机构指南),采用开腹或腹腔镜技术。对取出的标本进行组织病理学检查,并按照公认的金标准,将检查结果与两种评分系统的术前诊断结果进行比较:结果:PMS和ROMA对卵巢恶性肿瘤的预测概率都很高(AUC=0.93,灵敏度=83.3%,特异度=90.37%;AUC=0.91,灵敏度=84.4%,特异度=95.56%),但两种评分系统之间没有显著的统计学差异(P=0.353,95% CI -0.025至0.070):结论:PMS和ROMA似乎都是区分良性和恶性卵巢肿块的有前途的评分系统,但还需要更多的研究来确定最佳的诊断途径,尤其是能产生最少假阴性结果的途径。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Risk of Ovarian Malignancy Algorithm and Pelvic Mass Score for the prediction of malignant ovarian tumors: a prospective comparative study.

Aim: Ovarian cancer is the seventh most common female cancer worldwide. Nevertheless, there is no available universal screening method for malignant ovarian masses. This study compares the value of the Risk of Ovarian Malignancy Algorithm (ROMA) and Pelvic Mass Score (PMS) scoring systems in the diagnosis of malignant ovarian masses.

Material and methods: This prospective comparative study was conducted from March 2021 until April 2022. A total of 258 women diagnosed with ovarian mass and eligible for surgical intervention according to institutional guidelines were enrolled in the study. Ultrasound was performed for the assessment of masses, ascites and metastases, also color flow Doppler was done to measure the resistance index of the mass vasculature. Preoperative venous blood samples were collected to measure CA 125 and HE4. PMS and ROMA scoring systems were calculated for each patient. All women were subjected to a surgical intervention (according to applicable institutional guidelines), using either open or laparoscopic techniques. Histopathological examination of the removed specimens was done, and in line with the recognized gold standard, the results were compared with the pre-operative diagnosis of both scoring systems.

Results: Both PMS and ROMA showed a high predictive probability for ovarian malignancies (AUC = 0.93, sensitivity = 83.3%, specificity = 90.37%; AUC = 0.91, sensitivity = 84.4%, specificity = 95.56%, respectively), yet no statistical significant difference was found between the two scoring systems (p = 0.353, 95% CI -0.025 to 0.070).

Conclusions: Both PMS and ROMA seem to be promising scoring systems for discriminating benign from malignant ovarian masses, but more research is needed to determine the optimum diagnostic pathway, especially one yielding the least false-negative results.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Ultrasonography
Journal of Ultrasonography RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING-
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
58
审稿时长
20 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信