The comparison of pelvic mass score and risk of malignancy index-3 in discrimination of benign and malignant adnexal masses
Yazarlar (6)
Aliya Isgandarova Sağlık Bilimleri Üniversitesi, Türkiye
Ayşe Ender Yumru
Sağlık Bilimleri Üniversitesi, Türkiye
Sağlık Bilimleri Üniversitesi, Türkiye
Suat Karataş
Sağlık Bilimleri Üniversitesi, Türkiye
Sağlık Bilimleri Üniversitesi, Türkiye
Burcu Dinçgez
Türkiye
Türkiye
Betül Dündar Sağlık Bilimleri Üniversitesi, Türkiye
Doç. Dr. Ülkü Ayşe TÜRKER ARAS Kafkas Üniversitesi, Türkiye
| Makale Türü |
Özgün Makale
(ESCI dergilerinde yayınlanan tam makale)
|
||
| Dergi Adı | Şişli Etfal Hastanesi Tıp Bülteni | ||
| Dergi ISSN | 1302-7123 Dergi Bilgileri (2020) | ||
| Dergi Tarandığı Indeksler | ESCİ | ||
| Makale Dili | İngilizce | Basım Tarihi | 12-2020 |
| Kabul Tarihi | – | Yayınlanma Tarihi | 01-01-2019 |
| Cilt / Sayı / Sayfa | 54 / 4 / 490–496 | DOI | 10.14744/SEMB.2019.67299 |
| Makale Linki | http://dx.doi.org/10.14744/semb.2019.67299 | ||
| UAK Araştırma Alanları |
Kadın Hastalıkları ve Doğum
|
||
| Özet |
| Objectives: Discrimination of benign and malignant adnexal masses is crucial for the follow-up and prognosis of the patient. Sinceeach modality alone does not have enough sensitivity, the combination of all methods called multimodal screening is currentlybeing used. In this study, we aimed to compare pelvic mass score (PMS) and the risk of malignancy index (RMI-3) scoring systemsin determining the malignant potential of adnexal masses.Methods: In this prospective observational study, 40 patients between the age of 15-79 who were diagnosed as an adnexal masswere 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, histopathologicalresults, PMS and RMI-3 scores of the patients were recorded.Results: 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 ofPMS 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 valueof >53.2 (p<0.001).Conclusion: 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 moresensitive and more practical than the RMI-3 scoring system. |
| Anahtar Kelimeler |
BM Sürdürülebilir Kalkınma Amaçları
| Atıf Sayıları | |
| Yöksis | 2 |
| TR Dizin | 1 |