Pelvic examination, transvaginal ultrasound and transvaginal color Doppler sonography as predictors of ovarian cancer

Use of asprosin and subfatin for differential diagnosis of serous ovarian tumors

Asprosin (ASP) and subfatin are hormones that regulate glucose metabolism. The role of ASP and subfatin in serous ovarian tumors has not been investigated. We investigated the expression of subfatin and asprosin in 30 serous benign, 30 serous borderline, 30 malignant and 30 control ovarian tissues. We investigated ASP and subfatin immunoreactivity and quantification was achieved using an ELISA method. ASP and subfatin were localized in the epithelial parts of normal ovarian tissues; however, in cancer tissues, immunoreactivity was detected in the parenchymal areas. Biochemical analysis of ovarian tissues revealed significantly decreased ASP and subfatin compared to the control. We propose that ASP and subfatin are promising candidates for biomarkers to distinguish serous benign, serous borderline and malignant ovarian cancers.

A systematic review of the bimanual examination as a test for ovarian cancer

CONTEXT

An annual bimanual pelvic examination remains widely recommended for healthy women, but its inclusion may discourage attendance. Our goal was to determine the accuracy of the pelvic examination as a screening test for ovarian cancer and to distinguish benign from malignant lesions.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

PubMed was searched to identify studies evaluating the accuracy of the bimanual pelvic examination for ovarian cancer diagnosis. Data regarding study design, study quality, and test accuracy were abstracted. Heterogeneity was evaluated and meta-analysis performed where appropriate, including bivariate receiver operating characteristic curves.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Eight studies in screening populations (n=36,599) and seven studies in symptomatic patients (n=782) were identified. Search was completed in November 2013; included studies were published between 1988 and 2009. Screening studies were homogeneous; the summary estimates of sensitivity and specificity of the pelvic examination as a screening test for ovarian cancer were 0.44 and 0.98 (positive likelihood ratio, 24.7; negative likelihood ratio, 0.57). For distinguishing benign versus malignant lesions, there was considerable heterogeneity, with a range of sensitivity from 0.43 to 0.93 and specificity from 0.53 to 0.91.

CONCLUSIONS

The bimanual pelvic examination lacks accuracy as a screening test for ovarian cancer and as a way to distinguish benign from malignant lesions. In a typical screening population, the positive predictive value of an abnormal pelvic examination is only 1% (95% CI=0.67%, 3.0%). Its inclusion in a health maintenance examination cannot be justified on the basis of using it to screen for ovarian cancer.

Presurgical diagnosis of adnexal tumours using mathematical models and scoring systems: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND Characterizing ovarian pathology is fundamental to optimizing management in both pre- and post-menopausal women. Inappropriate referral to oncology services can lead to unnecessary surgery or overly radical interventions compromising fertility in young women, whilst the consequences of failing to recognize cancer significantly impact on prognosis. By reflecting on recent developments of new diagnostic tests for preoperative identification of malignant disease in women with adnexal masses, we aimed to update a previous systematic review and meta-analysis. METHODS An extended search was performed in MEDLINE (PubMed) and EMBASE (OvidSp) from March 2008 to October 2013. Eligible studies provided information on diagnostic test performance of models, designed to predict ovarian cancer in a preoperative setting, that contained at least two variables. Study selection and extraction of study characteristics, types of bias, and test performance was performed independently by two reviewers. Quality was assessed using a modified version of the QUADAS assessment tool. A bivariate hierarchical random effects model was used to produce summary estimates of sensitivity and specificity with 95% confidence intervals or plot summary ROC curves for all models considered. RESULTS Our extended search identified a total of 1542 new primary articles. In total, 195 studies were eligible for qualitative data synthesis, and 96 validation studies reporting on 19 different prediction models met the predefined criteria for quantitative data synthesis. These models were tested on 26 438 adnexal masses, including 7199 (27%) malignant and 19 239 (73%) benign masses. The Risk of Malignancy Index (RMI) was the most frequently validated model. The logistic regression model LR2 with a risk cut-off of 10% and Simple Rules (SR), both developed by the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis (IOTA) study, performed better than all other included models with a pooled sensitivity and specificity, respectively, of 0.92 [95% CI 0.88-0.95] and 0.83 [95% CI 0.77-0.88] for LR2 and 0.93 [95% CI 0.89-0.95] and 0.81 [95% CI 0.76-0.85] for SR. A meta-analysis of centre-specific results stratified for menopausal status of two multicentre cohorts comparing LR2, SR and RMI-1 (using a cut-off of 200) showed a pooled sensitivity and specificity in premenopausal women for LR2 of 0.85 [95% CI 0.75-0.91] and 0.91 [95% CI 0.83-0.96] compared with 0.93 [95% CI 0.84-0.97] and 0.83 [95% CI 0.73-0.90] for SR and 0.44 [95% CI 0.28-0.62] and 0.95 [95% CI 0.90-0.97] for RMI-1. In post-menopausal women, sensitivity and specificity of LR2, SR and RMI-1 were 0.94 [95% CI 0.89-0.97] and 0.70 [95% CI 0.62-0.77], 0.93 [95% CI 0.88-0.96] and 0.76 [95% CI 0.69-0.82], and 0.79 [95% CI 0.72-0.85] and 0.90 [95% CI 0.84-0.94], respectively. CONCLUSIONS An evidence-based approach to the preoperative characterization of any adnexal mass should incorporate the use of IOTA Simple Rules or the LR2 model, particularly for women of reproductive age.

The accuracy of risk scores in predicting ovarian malignancy: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To perform a systematic review of the literature on the accuracy of prediction models in the preoperative assessment of adnexal masses.

DATA SOURCES

Studies were identified through the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases from inception to March 2008. The MEDLINE search was performed using the keywords ["ovarian neoplasms"[MeSH] NOT "therapeutics"[MeSH] AND "model"] and ["ovarian neoplasms"[MeSH] NOT "therapeutics"[MeSH] AND "prediction"]. The Embase search was performed using the keywords [ovary tumor AND prediction], [ovary tumor AND Mathematical model], and [ovary tumor AND statistical model].

METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION

The search detected 1,161 publications; from the cross-references, another 116 studies were identified. Language restrictions were not applied. Eligible studies contained data on the accuracy of models predicting the risk of malignancy in ovarian masses. Models were required to combine at least two parameters.

TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS

Two independent reviewers selected studies and extracted study characteristics, study quality, and test accuracy. There were 109 accuracy studies that met the selection criteria. Accuracy data were used to form two-by-two contingency tables of the results of the risk score compared with definitive histology. We used bivariate meta-analysis to estimate pooled sensitivities and specificities and to fit summary receiver operating characteristic curves.Studies included in our analysis reported on 83 different prediction models. The model developed by Sassone was the most evaluated prediction model. All models has acceptable sensitivity and specificity. However, the Risk of Malignancy Index I and the Risk of Malignancy Index II, which use the product of the serum CA 125 level, an ultrasound scan result, and the menopausal state, were the best predictors. When 200 was used as the cutoff level, the pooled estimate for sensitivity was 78% for a specificity of 87%.

CONCLUSION

Based on our review, the Risk of Malignancy Index should be the prediction model of choice in the preoperative assessment of the adnexal mass.

A critical analysis of Doppler velocimetry in the differential diagnosis of malignant and benign ovarian masses

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the intratumoral reliability of color Doppler parameters and the contribution of Doppler sonography to the gray-scale differential diagnosis of ovarian masses.

METHODS

An observational study was performed including 67 patients, 15 (22.4%) with malignant ovarian neoplasm and 52 (77.6%) with benign ovarian diseases. We performed the Doppler evaluation in two distinct vessels selected after decreasing the Doppler gain to sample only vessels with higher velocity flow. Doppler measurements were obtained from each identified vessel, and resistive index (RI), pulsatility index (PI), peak systolic velocity (PSV), and end-diastolic velocity (EDV) were measured. Intraclass coefficient of correlation (ICC), sensitivity, specificity, and potential improvement in gray-scale ultrasound performance were calculated.

RESULTS

The general ICC were 0.60 (95% CI 0.42-0.73) for RI, 0.65 (95% CI 0.49-0.77) for PI, 0.07 (95% CI -0.17-0.30) for PSV, and 0.19 (95% CI -0.05-0.41) for EDV. The sensitivity and specificity were respectively 84.6% and 86.7% for RI, 69.2% and 93.3% for PI, 80.0% and 65.4% for gray-scale sonography, and 93.3% and 65.4% for gray-scale plus RI (p = 0.013).

CONCLUSIONS

Gynecologists must be careful in interpreting results from Doppler evaluation of ovarian masses because PSV and EDV present poor intratumoral reliability. The lower RI value, evaluated in at least two distinct sites of the tumor, was able to improve the performance of gray-scale ultrasound in differential diagnosis of ovarian masses.

Ultrasonography, computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging for diagnosis of ovarian carcinoma

Our objective was to compare US, CT, and MR imaging in differentiation of malignant from benign ovarian tumors. Through an electronic literature search and manual review of bibliographies (January 1990 to June 2006), relevant studies on the diagnostic performance of US, CT, and MR imaging in the differentiation between benign and malignant ovarian tumours were identified. Sixty-nine articles were included, yielding 143 studies. Data on the accuracy of the different imaging modalities were analyzed and compared by constructing summary receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curves. Our results suggest that US techniques seems to be similar with CT and MRI in differentiation of malignant from benign ovarian tumors. The results also revealed that color Doppler flow imaging alone is significantly inferior to combined US techniques, morphologic assessment alone and contrast enhanced US in diagnosis of ovarian cancer. In conclusion, US morphologic assessment still is the most important and common modality in detect ovarian cancer.

Color Doppler ultrasound in ovarian fibrosarcoma

BACKGROUND

Primary ovarian fibrosarcoma is a very rare tumor. Its Doppler waveform characteristics have not been described before.

CASE

A 35-year-old woman presented with a 5-cm solid ovarian mass. Intratumoral artery resistance index (RI) and pulsatility index (PI) were very low (0.19 and 0.21, respectively). Peak systolic velocity calculated by using transvaginal Doppler ultrasound was higher than expected (24.8 cm/s). Postoperatively, the histopathologic diagnosis was primary ovarian fibrosarcoma, stage Ia.

CONCLUSIONS

Low vascular resistance can be encountered in ovarian fibrosarcomas. In young patients presenting with a solid adnexal mass, intratumoral Doppler waveform investigations might offer some help for earlier prediction of rare malignant tumors like fibrosarcomas.

US characterization of ovarian masses: a meta-analysis

PURPOSE

To compare the effectiveness of current ultrasonographic (US) techniques for characterizing ovarian masses.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Through a MEDLINE literature search, articles with imaging-histopathologic correlation and data that allowed calculation of contingency tables were identified. Results of morphologic assessment, Doppler US, color Doppler flow imaging, and combined techniques were compared.

RESULTS

Among 89 data sets from 46 included studies (5,159 subjects), 35 sets used morphologic information, 36 measured Doppler US indexes, 10 assessed tumor vascularity with color Doppler flow imaging, and eight used combined techniques. Summary receiver operating characteristic curves revealed significantly higher performance for combined techniques than for morphologic information (P: =.003), Doppler US indexes (P: =.003), or color Doppler flow imaging alone (P: =.001). The Q* point (and 95% CI) for combined techniques was 0.92 (0.87, 0.96) versus 0. 85 (0.83, 0.88) for morphology, 0.82 (0.78, 0.86) for Doppler US, and 0.73 (0.58, 0.87) for color Doppler flow imaging. Morphologic assessment showed a trend toward better performance than color Doppler flow imaging (P: =.09) or Doppler US indexes (P: =.07). Doppler US index results were better in earlier studies (P: =.005).

CONCLUSION

Combined US techniques and a diagnostic algorithm perform significantly better than morphologic assessment, color Doppler flow imaging, or Doppler US indexes alone in characterizing ovarian masses.