DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Ovarian Malignancy Probability Score (OMPS) for Appropriate Referral of Adnexal Masses

  • Arab, Maliheh (Department of Gynecology-Oncology, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences) ;
  • Honarvar, Zahra (Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Kermanshah University of Medical Sciences) ;
  • Hosseini-Zijoud, Seyed-Mostafa (Social Development and Health Promotion Research Center, Kermanshah University of Medical Sciences)
  • Published : 2014.11.06

Abstract

Background: Ovarian cancer is the most common cancer cause of gynecologic cancer deaths. In order to increase the likelihood of patient survival through primary operation by gyneco-oncologists, an appropriate algorithm for referral is considered here. Materials and Methods: Suspicious adnexal mass cases including ovarian malignancy probability score-1 (OMPS1) scores between 2.3-3.65 are re-evaluated by OMPS2. Sensitivity and specificity of each score were determined. Results: Sensitivity and specificity with a 3.82 score of OMPS2 in the studied subgroup (OMPS1 scores between 2.3-3.65) were 64% and 76.9% respectively. Conclusions: Management of OMPS1 scores of below 2.3 with sensitivity of 100% and above 3.65 with specificity of 72.9% is clear. In the subgroup of cases with OMPS1 score between 2.3-3.65, OMPS2 is helpful for triage with a cutoff score of 3.82.

Keywords

Ovarian cancer;adnexal mass;probability score;centralized care;prediction

References

  1. Arikan SK, Kasap B, Yetimalar H, et al (2014). Impact of prognostic factors on survival rates in patients with ovarian carcinoma. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, 15, 6087-94. https://doi.org/10.7314/APJCP.2014.15.15.6087
  2. Posadas EM, Davidson B, Kohn EC (2004). Proteomics and ovarian cancer: implications for diagnosis and treatment: a critical review of the recent literature. Current Opinion Oncol, 16, 478-484. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001622-200409000-00012
  3. Yavuzcan A, Caglar M, Ozgu E, et al (2013). Should cutoff values of the risk of malignancy index be changed for evaluation of adnexal masses in Asian and Pacific populations? Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, 14, 5455-9. https://doi.org/10.7314/APJCP.2013.14.9.5455
  4. ACOG Committee Opinion: number 280, December 2002 (2002). The role of the generalist obstetrician-gynecologist in the early detection of ovarian cancer. Obstetrics Gynecol, 100, 1413-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0029-7844(02)02630-3
  5. Arab M, Noghabaei G, Kazemi SN (2014). Comparison of crude and age-specific incidence rates of breast, ovary, endometrium and cervix cancers in Iran, 2005. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, 15, 2461-64. https://doi.org/10.7314/APJCP.2014.15.6.2461
  6. Arab M, Yaseri M, Farzaneh M, et al (2012). The construction and validation of a new ovarian malignancy probability score (OMPS) for prediction of ovarian malignancy. Iranian J Cancer Prev, 3, 132-38.
  7. Bristow RE, Tomacruz RS, Armstrong DK, Trimble EL, Montz FJ (2002). Survival effect of maximal cytoreductive surgery for advanced ovarian carcinoma during the platinum era: a meta-analysis. J Clin Oncol, 20, 1248-59. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.20.5.1248
  8. Du Bois A, Quinn M, Thigpen T, et al (2005). 2004 consensus statements on the management of ovarian cancer: final document of the 3rd International Gynecologic Cancer Intergroup Ovarian Cancer Consensus Conference (GCIG OCCC 2004). Annals of oncology: official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology / ESMO, 16,viii7-viii12.
  9. Earle CC, Schrag D, Neville BA, et al (2006). Effect of surgeon specialty on processes of care and outcomes for ovarian cancer patients. J National Cancer Inst, 98, 172-180. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djj019
  10. Eisenkop SM, Spirtos NM, Montag TW, Nalick RH, Wang HJ (1992). The impact of subspecialty training on the management of advanced ovarian cancer. Gynecologic Oncol, 47, 203-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/0090-8258(92)90107-T
  11. Eltabbakh GH (2004). Recent advances in the management of women with ovarian cancer. Minerva ginecologica, 56, 81-9.
  12. Gadducci A, Ferdeghini M, Prontera C, et al (1992). The concomitant determination of different tumor markers in patients with epithelial ovarian cancer and benign ovarian masses: relevance for differential diagnosis. Gynecologic Oncol, 44, 147-154. https://doi.org/10.1016/0090-8258(92)90030-M
  13. Giede KC, Kieser K, Dodge J, Rosen B (2005). Who should operate on patients with ovarian cancer? An evidence-based review. Gynecologic Oncol, 99, 447-461. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2005.07.008
  14. Jacobs I, Oram D, Fairbanks J, et al (1990). A risk of malignancy index incorporating CA 125, ultrasound and menopausal status for the accurate preoperative diagnosis of ovarian cancer. Br J Obstetrics Gynaecol, 97, 922-9. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0528.1990.tb02448.x
  15. Le T, Giede C, Salem S, Lefebvre G, Rosen B, et al (2009). Initial evaluation and referral guidelines for management of pelvic/ovarian masses. J Obstet Gynaecol Can, 31, 668-80.
  16. Le T, Krepart GV, Lotocki RJ, Heywood MS (1997). Does debulking surgery improve survival in biologically aggressive ovarian carcinoma? Gynecologic Oncol, 67, 208-214. https://doi.org/10.1006/gyno.1997.4839
  17. Lewandrowski K (2003). Managing utilization of new diagnostic tests. Clin Leadersh Manag Rev, 17, 318-24.
  18. Mayer AR, Chambers SK, Graves E, et al (1992). Ovarian cancer staging: does it require a gynecologic oncologist? Gynecologic Oncol, 47, 223-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/0090-8258(92)90110-5
  19. McGowan L (1993). Patterns of care in carcinoma of the ovary. Cancer, 71, 628-33.
  20. Moss EL, Hollingworth J, Reynolds TM (2005). The role of CA125 in clinical practice. J Clin Pathol, 58, 308-312. https://doi.org/10.1136/jcp.2004.018077

Cited by

  1. Value of the Platelet to Lymphocyte Ratio in the Diagnosis of Ovarian Neoplasms in Adolescents vol.16, pp.5, 2015, https://doi.org/10.7314/APJCP.2015.16.5.2037