Comparison of HE 4, CA 125, ROMA score and ultrasound score in the differential diagnosis of ovarian masses

To compare the value of ultrasonography (USG) score, cancer antigen 125 (CA 125), human epididymis protein 4 (HE 4) and risk of malignancy algorithm (ROMA) in differential diagnosis ovarian masses. This prospective study was conducted between May 2012 and September 2013 in a single center. Eighty-fo...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of gynecology obstetrics and human reproduction 2020-05, Vol.49 (5), p.101713-101713, Article 101713
Hauptverfasser: Aslan, Koray, Onan, M. Anıl, Yilmaz, Canan, Bukan, Neslihan, Erdem, Mehmet
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:To compare the value of ultrasonography (USG) score, cancer antigen 125 (CA 125), human epididymis protein 4 (HE 4) and risk of malignancy algorithm (ROMA) in differential diagnosis ovarian masses. This prospective study was conducted between May 2012 and September 2013 in a single center. Eighty-four women who had an ovarian mass on imaging and underwent surgery were included. The diagnostic performances of CA 125, HE 4, ROMA score and USG score for ovarian cancer were analyzed. There were 65 (77.3 %) women with benign ovarian tumors and 19 (22.7 %) women with malignant ovarian tumors. According to receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis; area under curve (AUC) was 0.874 for the USG score (p < 0.001), 0.794 for the CA 125 (p < 0.001), 0.9 for the HE 4 (p < 0.001), and 0.893 for the ROMA (p < 0.001). The USG score ≥ 3 had a sensitivity of 68.4 % and specificity of 90.7 %.The CA 125 ≥ 35 IU/l, had a sensitivity of 84.2 %, specificity of 49.2 %, the HE 4 ≥ 150 pM, had a sensitivity of 84.2 %, specificity of 98.4 % and the ROMA score had a sensitivity of 84.2 %, specificity of 75.3 % The HE 4 had higher accuracy than ROMA score, USG score and CA 125, in predicting ovarian cancer. Besides, the USG score was a simple and achievable method with acceptable performance.
ISSN:2468-7847
2468-7847
DOI:10.1016/j.jogoh.2020.101713