Differential diagnosis of adnexal masses: risk of malignancy index, ultrasonography, magnetic resonance imaging, and radioimmunoscintigraphy

Van Trappen PO, Rufford BD, Mills TD, Sohaib SA, Webb JAW, Sahdev A, Carroll MJ, Britton KE, Reznek RH, Jacobs IJ. Differential diagnosis of adnexal masses: risk of malignancy index, ultrasonography, magnetic resonance imaging, and radioimmunoscintigraphy. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2007;17:61–67. A risk...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:International journal of gynecological cancer 2007-01, Vol.17 (1), p.61-67
Hauptverfasser: Trappen, P. O. Van, Rufford, B.D., Mills, T.D., Sohaib, S.A., Webb, J.A.W., Sahdev, A., Carroll, M.J., Britton, K.E., Reznek, R.H., Jacobs, I.J.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Van Trappen PO, Rufford BD, Mills TD, Sohaib SA, Webb JAW, Sahdev A, Carroll MJ, Britton KE, Reznek RH, Jacobs IJ. Differential diagnosis of adnexal masses: risk of malignancy index, ultrasonography, magnetic resonance imaging, and radioimmunoscintigraphy. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2007;17:61–67. A risk of malignancy index (RMI), based on menopausal status, ultrasound (US) findings, and serum CA125, has previously been described and validated in the primary evaluation of women with adnexal masses and is widely used in selective referral of women from local cancer units to specialized cancer centers. Additional imaging modalities could be useful for further characterization of adnexal masses in this group of women. A prospective cohort study was conducted of 196 women with an adnexal mass referred to a teaching hospital for diagnosis and management. Follow-up data was obtained for 180 women; 119 women had benign and 61 women malignant adnexal masses. The sensitivity and specificity of specialist US, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), radioimmunoscintigraphy (RS), and the RMI were determined. We identified a subgroup of women with RMI values of 25–1000 where the value of further specialist imaging was evaluated. Sensitivity and specificity for specialist US were 100% and 57%, for MRI 92% and 86%, and for RS 76% and 87%, respectively. Analysis of 123 patients managed sequentially, using RMI cutoff values of ≥25 and
ISSN:1048-891X
1525-1438
DOI:10.1111/j.1525-1438.2006.00753.x