期刊文献+

三种恶性风险指数在附件肿块良恶性判断中的价值 被引量:4

The Value of Three Risk of Malignancy Indices in Discriminating Benign from Malignant Adnexal Masses
下载PDF
导出
摘要 目的评价三种恶性风险指数(riskofmalignancyindex,RMI)判断附件肿块良恶性的性能。方法前瞻性地应用已报道的三种恶性风险指数(基于绝经状态、超声特点和CA125水平不同组合的评分系统),对180例附件肿块作出良恶性判断,评价它们在肿瘤的不同病理类型和临床分期中的诊断价值,比较它们与单项指标的诊断性能,分析它们在不同界值的诊断效能。结果三种恶性风险指数的诊断率在上皮性恶性肿瘤中(RMI182.6%,RMI291.3%,RMI386.9%)明显高于其它病理类型(均为50.0%)(P<0.001);在Ⅲ、Ⅳ期恶性肿瘤组的诊断性能明显优于在交界性肿瘤和Ⅰ、Ⅱ期恶性肿瘤组(P<0.05);总的诊断性能三种风险指数较单指标CA125和超声分数高,但无统计学差异(P>0.05);在界值20~300数值范围内三种风险指数之间的诊断效能无差异(P=0.05),与原始报道的诊断最佳界值(数值200)不同,本研究的诊断最佳界值为数值100。结论三种恶性风险指数评分系统在附件肿块良恶性判断中有一定的应用价值,但仍存在着改良的必要性和空间。 Objective: To evaluate the performance of the three kinds of the risk of malignancy indices(RMI) in discriminating benign from malignant adnexal masses. Methods: The three kinds of models(The RMI is the perduct of menopausal score, ultrasound scores, and the absolute value of serum CA 125 levels) were perspectively applied to predict the likelihood of malignancy in 180 patients with adnexal masses, their diagnostic values were analysed in the different histological types and FIGO stages of tumours, their diagnostic capability were compared with single indices, their best suitable cut of value was compared with result that original research reported. Results: The diagnostic rates of three kinds of models in epithelial malignant tumours (RMI1: 82.6%, RMI2: 91.3%, RMI3: 86.9%) were significantly higher than in the other histological types (50.0%) (P<0.001); In the group of patients with borderline tumour and stages Ⅰ?Ⅱ of ovarian cancer, their diagnostic capabilities were significantly lower than in the group of patients with stages Ⅲ?Ⅳ of ovarian cancer (P<0.05); Their total diagnostic capabilities exceeded that of CA125 level and ultrasound scores(P>0.05); There were no differences among the diagnostic capabilities of three kinds of models (P=0.05), their best suitable cut of values were level of 100 other than level of 200 that was originally reported. Conclusion: The three kinds of RMI hold some values in discriminating benign from malignant adnexal masses, worthwhile they need to be improved.
出处 《中国肿瘤临床》 CAS CSCD 北大核心 2004年第16期921-924,共4页 Chinese Journal of Clinical Oncology
基金 山东省医药卫生科技发展计划基金资助(编号:JW15)
关键词 附件肿块 恶性风险指数 诊断 Adnexal mass The risk of malignancy index Diagnosis
  • 相关文献

参考文献10

  • 1[1]Jacobs I, Oram D, Fairbanks J, et al. A risk of malignancy index incorporation CA125, ultrasound and menopausal status for the accurate preoperative diagnosis of ovarian cancer [J]. Br J Obstet Gynecol, 1990, 97(10): 922~929
  • 2[2]Tingulstad S, Hagen B, Skjeldestad FE, et al. Evaluation of a risk of malignancy index based on serum CA125, ultrasound findings and menopausal status in the pre-operative diagnosis of pelvic masses[J]. BrJ Obstet Gynecol, 1996, 103(8): 826~831
  • 3[3]Tingulstad S, Hagen B, Skjeldestad FE, et al. The risk-of-malignancy index to evaluate potential ovarian cancer in local hospital [J]. Obstet Gynaecol, 1999, 93(3): 448~451
  • 4刘召芬,刘韶平,康德英,孔北华,江森.以血清CA125、绝经状态和超声检查评分预测卵巢肿瘤患者术前恶性危险指数[J].现代妇产科进展,2001,10(1):17-19. 被引量:5
  • 5马水清,沈铿,郎景和.恶性肿瘤风险指数在卵巢恶性肿瘤术前诊断中的作用[J].中华妇产科杂志,2001,36(3):162-164. 被引量:33
  • 6[6]Aslam N, Tailor A, Lawton E, et al. Prospective evaluation of three different models for the pre-operative diagnosis of ovarian cancer[J]. BrJ Obstet Gynecol, 2000, 107(11): 1347~1353
  • 7[7]Manjunath AP, Pratapkumar, Sujatha K, et al. Comparison of three risk of malignancy indices in evaluation of pelvic masses [J].Gynecol Oncol, 2001, 81(2): 225~229
  • 8[8]Andersen ES, Knudsen A, Rix P, et al. Risk of malignancy index in the preoperative evaluation of patients with adnexal masses [J].Gynecol Oncol, 2003, 90(1): 109~112
  • 9[9]Remzi M, Anagnostou T, Ravery V, et al. An artificial neural network to predict the outcome of repeat prostate biopsies[J]. Urology, 2003, 62(3): 456~460
  • 10[10]Stephan C, Cammann H, Semjonow A, et al. Multicenter evaluation of an artificial neural network to increase the protate cancer detection rate and reduce unnecessary biopsies [J]. Clin Chem,2002, 48(8): 1279~1287

二级参考文献10

  • 1[1]Gillis CR, Hole DJ, Still RM, et al. Medical edit, cancer registration, and survival in ovarian cancer[J]. Lancet,1991,337:611-612
  • 2[2]Sassone AM, Timor-Tritsch IE, Artner A, et al. Transvaginal sonogr aphic c haracterization of ovarian disease: Evaluation of a new scoring system to predic t ovarian malignancy[J].Obstet Gynecol,1991,78:70-76
  • 3[3]Jacobs I, Oram D, Fairbanks J, et al. A risk of malignancy index incorporating CA125, ultrasou nd and menopausal status for the accurate preoperative diagnosis of ovarian canc er[J].Br J Obstet Gynecol,1990,97:922-929
  • 4[4]Tingulstad S, Hagen B, Skj eldestad FE, et al. Evaluation of a risk of malignancy index based on serum CA125, ultrasound and menopausal status in the pre-operative diagnosis of pelvicmass es[J].Br J Obstet Gynecol,1996, 103:826-831
  • 5[5]Patsner B, Mann WJ. The v alue of preoperative serum CA125levels in patients with a pelvic mass findings [J] .Am J Obstet Gynecol,1988,159:873-876
  • 6[6]Davies AP,Jacobs I, Woolas R, et al . The adnexal mass:Benign or malignant?Evaluation of a risk of malignancy index findings[J].Br J Obstet Gynecol,1993,100:927-931
  • 7[7]Morga nte G, Marca AL, Ditt o A,et al. Comparison of two malignancy risk indices based on serum CA125,ultras ound score and menopausal status in the diagnosis of ovarian masses[J]. Br J Obstet Gynecol,1999,106:524-527
  • 8Giuseppe M,Br J Obstet Gynaecol,1999年,106卷,524页
  • 9Tingulstad S,Br J Obstet Gynaecol,1996年,103卷,826页
  • 10Gillis C R,Lancet,1991年,337卷,611页

共引文献36

同被引文献33

  • 1楼海亚,孟华,朱庆莉,张青,姜玉新.四种恶性风险指数在附件肿块良恶性诊断中的应用价值[J].中国医学科学院学报,2010,32(3):297-302. 被引量:10
  • 2伊铁忠,糜若然.腹腔镜在妇产科应用的新进展[J].国外医学(计划生育.生殖健康分册),2006,25(2):96-98. 被引量:2
  • 3Vergote I, Marquette S, Amant F et al. Portsite metastases af- ter open laparoscopy. A study in 173 patients with advanced o- varian carcinoma[J]. Int J Gynecol Cancer; 2005, 15 (5) : 776.
  • 4Jaeobs I, Oram D, Fairbanks Jet al. A risk of malignancy in- dex incorparating CA125, ultrasound and menopausal status for the accurate preoperative diagnosis of.ovarian cancer [J]. Br J Obstet Gynecol, 1990, 97:922.
  • 5Fenazzi E, Zanetta G, Dordoni D et al. Transvaginal ultra- sonographic characterization of ovarian masses: comparison of five scoring systems in a multicenter study [ J] . Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol, 1997, 10:192.
  • 6Dapnote A, Stergoti E, messinis IE. Risk scoring for adnexal masses and endoscopic management[J]. Int J Gynaecol Ob- stet, 2007, 96:42.
  • 7Tozzi R, Malur S, Koehler C et al. Laparoscopy versus lapa- rotomy in endometrial cancer. First analysis of survival of a ran- domized prospective study [J]. J Minim Invasive Cynecol, 2005, 12 (2): 130.
  • 8Steiner RA, Fehr PM. Minimal invasive surgery in gynaecology[J]. Ther Umsch, 2005, 62 (2) : 127.
  • 9Michel Canis,Benoit Rabischong,Celine Houlle et al. Laparoscopic management of adnexal masses : a gold standard [J] .9 Int J Med, 2003, 11 (1): 30.
  • 10Musto A,Rampin L,Nanni C,et al.Present and future of PET and PET/CT in gynaecologic malignancies.Eur J Radiol,2011,78 (1):12-20.

引证文献4

二级引证文献16

相关作者

内容加载中请稍等...

相关机构

内容加载中请稍等...

相关主题

内容加载中请稍等...

浏览历史

内容加载中请稍等...
;
使用帮助 返回顶部