-
Je něco špatně v tomto záznamu ?
Comparison of the Copenhagen Index versus ROMA for the preoperative assessment of women with ovarian tumors
L. Minar, M. Felsinger, Z. Cermakova, F. Zlamal, J. Bienertova-Vasku,
Jazyk angličtina Země Spojené státy americké
Typ dokumentu srovnávací studie, časopisecké články
PubMed
29086914
DOI
10.1002/ijgo.12371
Knihovny.cz E-zdroje
- MeSH
- algoritmy * MeSH
- antigen CA-125 krev MeSH
- diferenciální diagnóza MeSH
- dospělí MeSH
- lidé středního věku MeSH
- lidé MeSH
- nádorové biomarkery krev MeSH
- nádory vaječníků krev klasifikace diagnóza patologie MeSH
- retrospektivní studie MeSH
- riziko MeSH
- senioři MeSH
- senzitivita a specificita MeSH
- Check Tag
- dospělí MeSH
- lidé středního věku MeSH
- lidé MeSH
- senioři MeSH
- ženské pohlaví MeSH
- Publikační typ
- časopisecké články MeSH
- srovnávací studie MeSH
- Geografické názvy
- Česká republika MeSH
OBJECTIVE: To compare the Copenhagen Index (CPH-I) and the Risk of Ovarian Malignancy Algorithm (ROMA) in the differential diagnosis of ovarian tumors. METHODS: In a retrospective study, data were reviewed from women with ovarian tumors who attended University Hospital Brno, Czech Republic, between July 2011 and June 2015. The women were classified into the benign tumor group or malignant tumor group (borderline and malignant tumors). Serum levels of CA125 and HE4 were extracted from medical records. The two tumor indices were calculated using relevant clinical data. RESULTS: Among 267 included women, 110 had benign tumors, 42 had borderline ovarian tumors, and 115 had malignant tumors. The two indices showed similar discriminatory performance with no significant differences (P>0.05). In the differentiation of benign tumors from all stages of borderline tumor and ovarian cancer, ROMA showed a sensitivity of 71% at a specificity of 88%, whereas CPH-I showed a sensitivity of 69% at a specificity of 85%. CONCLUSION: CPH-I is a potential tumor index that is independent of menopausal status. It might be applied as a simple alternative to ROMA in settings of basic medical care.
Citace poskytuje Crossref.org
- 000
- 00000naa a2200000 a 4500
- 001
- bmc18033613
- 003
- CZ-PrNML
- 005
- 20181023105730.0
- 007
- ta
- 008
- 181008s2018 xxu f 000 0|eng||
- 009
- AR
- 024 7_
- $a 10.1002/ijgo.12371 $2 doi
- 035 __
- $a (PubMed)29086914
- 040 __
- $a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
- 041 0_
- $a eng
- 044 __
- $a xxu
- 100 1_
- $a Minar, Lubos $u Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Faculty of Medicine, Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic. University Hospital Brno, Brno, Czech Republic.
- 245 10
- $a Comparison of the Copenhagen Index versus ROMA for the preoperative assessment of women with ovarian tumors / $c L. Minar, M. Felsinger, Z. Cermakova, F. Zlamal, J. Bienertova-Vasku,
- 520 9_
- $a OBJECTIVE: To compare the Copenhagen Index (CPH-I) and the Risk of Ovarian Malignancy Algorithm (ROMA) in the differential diagnosis of ovarian tumors. METHODS: In a retrospective study, data were reviewed from women with ovarian tumors who attended University Hospital Brno, Czech Republic, between July 2011 and June 2015. The women were classified into the benign tumor group or malignant tumor group (borderline and malignant tumors). Serum levels of CA125 and HE4 were extracted from medical records. The two tumor indices were calculated using relevant clinical data. RESULTS: Among 267 included women, 110 had benign tumors, 42 had borderline ovarian tumors, and 115 had malignant tumors. The two indices showed similar discriminatory performance with no significant differences (P>0.05). In the differentiation of benign tumors from all stages of borderline tumor and ovarian cancer, ROMA showed a sensitivity of 71% at a specificity of 88%, whereas CPH-I showed a sensitivity of 69% at a specificity of 85%. CONCLUSION: CPH-I is a potential tumor index that is independent of menopausal status. It might be applied as a simple alternative to ROMA in settings of basic medical care.
- 650 _2
- $a dospělí $7 D000328
- 650 _2
- $a senioři $7 D000368
- 650 12
- $a algoritmy $7 D000465
- 650 _2
- $a nádorové biomarkery $x krev $7 D014408
- 650 _2
- $a antigen CA-125 $x krev $7 D018394
- 650 _2
- $a Česká republika $7 D018153
- 650 _2
- $a diferenciální diagnóza $7 D003937
- 650 _2
- $a ženské pohlaví $7 D005260
- 650 _2
- $a lidé $7 D006801
- 650 _2
- $a lidé středního věku $7 D008875
- 650 _2
- $a nádory vaječníků $x krev $x klasifikace $x diagnóza $x patologie $7 D010051
- 650 _2
- $a retrospektivní studie $7 D012189
- 650 _2
- $a riziko $7 D012306
- 650 _2
- $a senzitivita a specificita $7 D012680
- 655 _2
- $a srovnávací studie $7 D003160
- 655 _2
- $a časopisecké články $7 D016428
- 700 1_
- $a Felsinger, Michal $7 xx0228419 $u Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Faculty of Medicine, Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic. University Hospital Brno, Brno, Czech Republic.
- 700 1_
- $a Cermakova, Zdenka $u Department of Biochemistry, University Hospital Brno, Brno, Czech Republic.
- 700 1_
- $a Zlamal, Filip $u Department of Pathological Physiology, Faculty of Medicine, Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic. Research Centre for Toxic Compounds in the Environment, Faculty of Science, Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic.
- 700 1_
- $a Bienertova-Vasku, Julie $u Department of Pathological Physiology, Faculty of Medicine, Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic. Research Centre for Toxic Compounds in the Environment, Faculty of Science, Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic.
- 773 0_
- $w MED00009895 $t International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics $x 1879-3479 $g Roč. 140, č. 2 (2018), s. 241-246
- 856 41
- $u https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29086914 $y Pubmed
- 910 __
- $a ABA008 $b sig $c sign $y a $z 0
- 990 __
- $a 20181008 $b ABA008
- 991 __
- $a 20181023110237 $b ABA008
- 999 __
- $a ok $b bmc $g 1339525 $s 1030607
- BAS __
- $a 3
- BAS __
- $a PreBMC
- BMC __
- $a 2018 $b 140 $c 2 $d 241-246 $e 20171122 $i 1879-3479 $m International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics $n Int J Gynaecol Obstet $x MED00009895
- LZP __
- $a Pubmed-20181008