Copenhagen Index versus ROMA in preoperative ovarian malignancy risk stratification: Result from the first Vietnamese prospective cohort study

被引:8
作者
Tran, Doan Tu [1 ]
Vo, Van Khoa [1 ]
Le, Minh Tam [1 ]
Chuang, Linus [2 ]
Nguyen, Vu Quoc Huy [1 ]
机构
[1] Hue Univ, Hue Univ Med & Pharm, Dept Obstet & Gynecol, 06 Ngo Quyen St, Hue 491200, Vietnam
[2] Univ Vermont, Larner Coll Med, Nuvance Hlth, Dept Obstet & Gynecol, Burlington, VT 05405 USA
关键词
Ovarian tumor; Copenhagen index (CPH-I); Risk of ovarian malignancy algorithm (ROMA); CA-125; HE4; CANCER; DIAGNOSIS; HE-4; CA125; WOMEN; PREDICTION; BIOMARKERS; ALGORITHMS; ULTRASOUND; CA-125;
D O I
10.1016/j.ygyno.2021.05.001
中图分类号
R73 [肿瘤学];
学科分类号
100214 ;
摘要
Objectives. This study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic performances of the Copenhagen Index (CPH-I) and Risk of Ovarian Malignancy Algorithm (ROMA) in the preoperative prediction of ovarian cancer. Methods. In a prospective cohort study, data were collected from 475 patients with ovarian masses diagnosed by gynecologic examination / ultrasound who were hospitalized at the Departments of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Hue University of Medicine and Pharmacy Hospital and Hue Central Hospital, Vietnam, between January 2018 and June 2020. ROMA and CPH-I were calculated based on measurements of serum carbohydrate antigen (CA-125) and human epididymis protein (HE4). The final diagnosis was based on clinical features, radiologic and histologic findings, and the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) 2014 stages of ovarian cancer were recorded. Matching the values of ROMA and CPH-I to postoperative histopathology reports resulted in the preoperative prediction values. Results. Among the 475 women, 408 had benign tumors, 5 had borderline tumors and 62 had malignant tumors. The two indices showed similar discriminatory performances with no significant differences (p > 0.05). At an optimal cut-off, the sensitivities/specificities of ROMA and CPH-I for ovarian cancer diagnosis were 74.2% and 91.8%, 87.1% and 78.5%, respectively. The optimal cut-off for CPH-I was 1.89%. The areas under the ROC curves (AUCs) of ROMA and CPH-I were 0.882 (95% CI: 0.849-0.909) and 0.898 (95% CI: 0.867-0.924), respectively. Conclusions. The introduction of the Copenhagen Index to help stratify the malignancy risk of ovarian tumors, irrespective of menopausal status, might be applied as a simple alternative with a similar efficacy to ROMA in clinical practice. (c) 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
引用
收藏
页码:113 / 119
页数:7
相关论文
共 27 条
  • [1] Comparison of the Copenhagen Index versus ROMA for the preoperative assessment of women with ovarian tumors
    Minar, Lubos
    Felsinger, Michal
    Cermakova, Zdenka
    Zlamal, Filip
    Bienertova-Vasku, Julie
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GYNECOLOGY & OBSTETRICS, 2018, 140 (02) : 241 - 246
  • [2] Comparison of the risk of ovarian malignancy algorithm and Copenhagen Index for the preoperative assessment of Japanese women with ovarian tumors
    Iizuka, Makoto
    Hamada, Yoshinobu
    Matsushima, Jun
    Ichikawa, Teppei
    Irie, Taichi
    Yamaguchi, Noriko
    Sakamoto, Shuichi
    Ban, Shinichi
    Takakura, Satoshi
    JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNAECOLOGY RESEARCH, 2023, 49 (11) : 2717 - 2727
  • [3] Subjective assessment by ultrasound is superior to the risk of malignancy index (RMI) or the risk of ovarian malignancy algorithm (ROMA) in discriminating benign from malignant adnexal masses
    Van Gorp, Toon
    Veldman, Joan
    Van Calster, Ben
    Cadron, Isabelle
    Leunen, Karin
    Amant, Frederic
    Timmerman, Dirk
    Vergote, Ignace
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CANCER, 2012, 48 (11) : 1649 - 1656
  • [4] Risk of Ovarian Malignancy Algorithm versus Risk Malignancy Index-I for Preoperative Assessment of Adnexal Masses: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
    Chacon, Enrique
    Dasi, Joana
    Caballero, Carolina
    Alcazar, Juan Luis
    GYNECOLOGIC AND OBSTETRIC INVESTIGATION, 2019, 84 (06) : 591 - 598
  • [5] Comparing the Copenhagen Index (CPH-I) and Risk of Ovarian Malignancy Algorithm (ROMA): Two equivalent ways to differentiate malignant from benign ovarian tumors before surgery?
    Yoshida, Adriana
    Derchain, Sophie Francoise
    Pitta, Denise Rocha
    Lucci De Angelo Andrade, Liliana Aparecida
    Sarian, Luis Otavio
    GYNECOLOGIC ONCOLOGY, 2016, 140 (03) : 481 - 485
  • [6] Copenhagen index (CPH-I) is more favorable than CA125, HE4, and risk of ovarian malignancy algorithm (ROMA): Nomogram prediction models with clinical-ultrasonographic feature for diagnosing ovarian neoplasms
    Song, Zixuan
    Wang, Xiaoxue
    Fu, Jiajun
    Wang, Pengyuan
    Chen, Xueting
    Zhang, Dandan
    FRONTIERS IN SURGERY, 2023, 9
  • [7] Comparison of Four Risk of Malignancy Indices for Preoperative Evaluation of Ovarian Masses: A Prospective Observational Study
    Priyanka, Matcha B.
    Panda, Jyochnamayi
    Samantroy, Subhra
    Panda, Soumya R.
    Jena, Pramila
    CUREUS JOURNAL OF MEDICAL SCIENCE, 2023, 15 (07)
  • [8] Ovarian fibroma/fibrothecoma: Retrospective cohort study shows limited value of risk of malignancy index score
    Numanoglu, Ceyhun
    Kuru, Oguzhan
    Sakinci, Mehmet
    Akbayir, Ozgur
    Ulker, Volkan
    AUSTRALIAN & NEW ZEALAND JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS & GYNAECOLOGY, 2013, 53 (03) : 287 - 292
  • [9] The use of CA125, human epididymis protein 4 (HE4) , risk of ovarian malignancy algorithm (ROMA), risk of malignancy index (RMI) and subjective assessment (SA) in preoperative diagnosing of ovarian tumors
    Janas, Lukasz
    Stachowiak, Grzegorz
    Glowacka, Ewa
    Piwowarczyk, Iwona
    Kajdos, Magdalena
    Soja, Malwina
    Masternak, Martyna
    Nowak, Marek
    GINEKOLOGIA POLSKA, 2024, 95 (05) : 321 - 327
  • [10] A prospective study to evaluate the risk malignancy index and its diagnostic implication in patients with suspected ovarian mass
    Dora, Santosh Kumar
    Dandapat, Atal Bihari
    Pande, Benudhar
    Hota, Jatindra Prasad
    JOURNAL OF OVARIAN RESEARCH, 2017, 10