{"title":"盆腔肿块术前评价中4项恶性肿瘤风险指标的比较:一项前瞻性研究","authors":"Yorito Yamamoto, Aki Tsuchida, Takashi Ushiwaka, Ryuhei Nagai, Mitsuhiro Matsumoto, Junko Komatsu, Hiromi Kinoshita, Susumu Minami, Kazutoshi Hayashi","doi":"10.1016/j.cogc.2014.11.001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>The aim of this study was to validate the risk-of-malignancy index (RMI) incorporating menopausal status, serum CA 125 levels, and imaging findings for discriminating benign from malignant pelvic masses and to evaluate the ability of 4 different RMIs.</p></div><div><h3>Patients and Methods</h3><p>This is a prospective study of 296 women admitted to the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology of Kochi Health Sciences Center, between September 2011 and April 2014, for surgical exploration of pelvic masses. The RMI 1, 2, 3, and 4 methods were calculated for all patients together with the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>The sensitivity of RMIs 1, 2, 3, and 4 was 73.0%, 81.1%, 73.0%, and 77.0%, respectively, and the specificity was 93.7%, 89.6%, 93.7%, and 92.3%, respectively. The RMI 2 was significantly better at predicting malignancy than RMIs 1 3; however, there was no statistically significant difference in performance of RMIs 2 4.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>The RMI method is a valuable and applicable method in diagnosing pelvic masses with high risk of malignancy and a simple technique that can be used in gynecology clinics and less-specialized centers.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":100274,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Ovarian and Other Gynecologic Cancer","volume":"7 1","pages":"Pages 8-12"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2014-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.cogc.2014.11.001","citationCount":"15","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of 4 Risk-of-Malignancy Indexes in the Preoperative Evaluation of Patients With Pelvic Masses: A Prospective Study\",\"authors\":\"Yorito Yamamoto, Aki Tsuchida, Takashi Ushiwaka, Ryuhei Nagai, Mitsuhiro Matsumoto, Junko Komatsu, Hiromi Kinoshita, Susumu Minami, Kazutoshi Hayashi\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.cogc.2014.11.001\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>The aim of this study was to validate the risk-of-malignancy index (RMI) incorporating menopausal status, serum CA 125 levels, and imaging findings for discriminating benign from malignant pelvic masses and to evaluate the ability of 4 different RMIs.</p></div><div><h3>Patients and Methods</h3><p>This is a prospective study of 296 women admitted to the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology of Kochi Health Sciences Center, between September 2011 and April 2014, for surgical exploration of pelvic masses. The RMI 1, 2, 3, and 4 methods were calculated for all patients together with the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>The sensitivity of RMIs 1, 2, 3, and 4 was 73.0%, 81.1%, 73.0%, and 77.0%, respectively, and the specificity was 93.7%, 89.6%, 93.7%, and 92.3%, respectively. The RMI 2 was significantly better at predicting malignancy than RMIs 1 3; however, there was no statistically significant difference in performance of RMIs 2 4.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>The RMI method is a valuable and applicable method in diagnosing pelvic masses with high risk of malignancy and a simple technique that can be used in gynecology clinics and less-specialized centers.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":100274,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical Ovarian and Other Gynecologic Cancer\",\"volume\":\"7 1\",\"pages\":\"Pages 8-12\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2014-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.cogc.2014.11.001\",\"citationCount\":\"15\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical Ovarian and Other Gynecologic Cancer\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212955314000623\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Ovarian and Other Gynecologic Cancer","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212955314000623","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Comparison of 4 Risk-of-Malignancy Indexes in the Preoperative Evaluation of Patients With Pelvic Masses: A Prospective Study
Background
The aim of this study was to validate the risk-of-malignancy index (RMI) incorporating menopausal status, serum CA 125 levels, and imaging findings for discriminating benign from malignant pelvic masses and to evaluate the ability of 4 different RMIs.
Patients and Methods
This is a prospective study of 296 women admitted to the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology of Kochi Health Sciences Center, between September 2011 and April 2014, for surgical exploration of pelvic masses. The RMI 1, 2, 3, and 4 methods were calculated for all patients together with the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value.
Results
The sensitivity of RMIs 1, 2, 3, and 4 was 73.0%, 81.1%, 73.0%, and 77.0%, respectively, and the specificity was 93.7%, 89.6%, 93.7%, and 92.3%, respectively. The RMI 2 was significantly better at predicting malignancy than RMIs 1 3; however, there was no statistically significant difference in performance of RMIs 2 4.
Conclusion
The RMI method is a valuable and applicable method in diagnosing pelvic masses with high risk of malignancy and a simple technique that can be used in gynecology clinics and less-specialized centers.