• Je něco špatně v tomto záznamu ?

Role of CA125/CEA ratio and ultrasound parameters in identifying metastases to the ovaries in patients with multilocular and multilocular-solid ovarian masses

F. Moro, T. Pasciuto, D. Djokovic, A. Di Legge, V. Granato, MC. Moruzzi, R. Mancari, GF. Zannoni, D. Fischerova, D. Franchi, G. Scambia, AC. Testa,

. 2019 ; 53 (1) : 116-123.

Jazyk angličtina Země Anglie, Velká Británie

Typ dokumentu hodnotící studie, časopisecké články

Perzistentní odkaz   https://www.medvik.cz/link/bmc19012567

OBJECTIVES: To investigate ultrasound features and the best cut-off value of the cancer antigen 125/carcinoembryonic antigen (CA125/CEA) ratio to discriminate ovarian metastases from benign and primary malignant ovarian neoplasms in two selected groups of morphological ovarian masses, namely multilocular masses with five or more locules and multilocular-solid masses. METHODS: Patients with multilocular (five or more locules) or multilocular-solid ovarian masses, operated on within 3 months of ultrasound examination, and with tumor markers (CEA and CA125) available at diagnosis, were identified retrospectively from three ultrasound centers. The masses were described using the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis (IOTA) terminology. Ultrasound and clinical characteristics were compared between those with an ovarian neoplasm (including benign and primary malignant neoplasms) and those with an ovarian metastasis. Receiver-operating characteristics curve (ROC) analysis was used to evaluate the ability of CA125, CEA and CA125/CEA to differentiate between ovarian neoplasms and ovarian metastases, and their predictive performance was assessed. RESULTS: In total, 350 (88.4%) patients with an ovarian neoplasm (including 99 benign, 43 borderline and 197 primary epithelial ovarian carcinomas, seven malignant rare tumors and four other types of invasive ovarian tumor) and 46 (11.6%) patients with an ovarian metastasis were analyzed. On ultrasound examination, ovarian neoplasms were smaller than ovarian metastases (median largest diameter, 97 (range, 20-387) mm vs 146 (range, 43-259) mm, respectively; P < 0.0001) and presented with a lower number of cysts with > 10 locules (18.9% vs 54.3%; P < 0.0001). ROC curve analysis showed that the best cut-off value of CEA for distinguishing between ovarian neoplasms and ovarian metastases was 2.33 ng/mL. The predictive performance of this CEA cut-off value was: area under the curve (AUC), 0.791 (95% CI, 0.711-0.870); accuracy, 73.7%; sensitivity, 73.1%; specificity, 78.3%; positive predictive value (PPV), 96.2%; and negative predictive value (NPV), 27.7%. The best cut-off value of CA125/CEA for distinguishing between ovarian neoplasms and ovarian metastases was 11.92. The predictive performance of this CA125/CEA cut-off value was: AUC, 0.758 (95% CI, 0.683-0.833); accuracy, 79.8%; sensitivity, 82.3%; specificity, 60.9%; PPV, 94.1%; and NPV, 31.1%. CONCLUSIONS: CA125/CEA ratio and CEA alone did not show any significant difference in their ability to distinguish between ovarian neoplasms (including benign and malignant) and ovarian metastases in masses with multilocular and those with multilocular-solid morphology. Therefore, in this morphological subgroup of ovarian masses, CEA alone is sufficient to differentiate between ovarian neoplasms and ovarian metastases. Copyright © 2018 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Citace poskytuje Crossref.org

000      
00000naa a2200000 a 4500
001      
bmc19012567
003      
CZ-PrNML
005      
20190408082934.0
007      
ta
008      
190405s2019 enk f 000 0|eng||
009      
AR
024    7_
$a 10.1002/uog.19174 $2 doi
035    __
$a (PubMed)29978587
040    __
$a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
041    0_
$a eng
044    __
$a enk
100    1_
$a Moro, F $u Dipartimento Scienze della Salute della Donna e del Bambino, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli, IRCCS, Rome, Italy.
245    10
$a Role of CA125/CEA ratio and ultrasound parameters in identifying metastases to the ovaries in patients with multilocular and multilocular-solid ovarian masses / $c F. Moro, T. Pasciuto, D. Djokovic, A. Di Legge, V. Granato, MC. Moruzzi, R. Mancari, GF. Zannoni, D. Fischerova, D. Franchi, G. Scambia, AC. Testa,
520    9_
$a OBJECTIVES: To investigate ultrasound features and the best cut-off value of the cancer antigen 125/carcinoembryonic antigen (CA125/CEA) ratio to discriminate ovarian metastases from benign and primary malignant ovarian neoplasms in two selected groups of morphological ovarian masses, namely multilocular masses with five or more locules and multilocular-solid masses. METHODS: Patients with multilocular (five or more locules) or multilocular-solid ovarian masses, operated on within 3 months of ultrasound examination, and with tumor markers (CEA and CA125) available at diagnosis, were identified retrospectively from three ultrasound centers. The masses were described using the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis (IOTA) terminology. Ultrasound and clinical characteristics were compared between those with an ovarian neoplasm (including benign and primary malignant neoplasms) and those with an ovarian metastasis. Receiver-operating characteristics curve (ROC) analysis was used to evaluate the ability of CA125, CEA and CA125/CEA to differentiate between ovarian neoplasms and ovarian metastases, and their predictive performance was assessed. RESULTS: In total, 350 (88.4%) patients with an ovarian neoplasm (including 99 benign, 43 borderline and 197 primary epithelial ovarian carcinomas, seven malignant rare tumors and four other types of invasive ovarian tumor) and 46 (11.6%) patients with an ovarian metastasis were analyzed. On ultrasound examination, ovarian neoplasms were smaller than ovarian metastases (median largest diameter, 97 (range, 20-387) mm vs 146 (range, 43-259) mm, respectively; P < 0.0001) and presented with a lower number of cysts with > 10 locules (18.9% vs 54.3%; P < 0.0001). ROC curve analysis showed that the best cut-off value of CEA for distinguishing between ovarian neoplasms and ovarian metastases was 2.33 ng/mL. The predictive performance of this CEA cut-off value was: area under the curve (AUC), 0.791 (95% CI, 0.711-0.870); accuracy, 73.7%; sensitivity, 73.1%; specificity, 78.3%; positive predictive value (PPV), 96.2%; and negative predictive value (NPV), 27.7%. The best cut-off value of CA125/CEA for distinguishing between ovarian neoplasms and ovarian metastases was 11.92. The predictive performance of this CA125/CEA cut-off value was: AUC, 0.758 (95% CI, 0.683-0.833); accuracy, 79.8%; sensitivity, 82.3%; specificity, 60.9%; PPV, 94.1%; and NPV, 31.1%. CONCLUSIONS: CA125/CEA ratio and CEA alone did not show any significant difference in their ability to distinguish between ovarian neoplasms (including benign and malignant) and ovarian metastases in masses with multilocular and those with multilocular-solid morphology. Therefore, in this morphological subgroup of ovarian masses, CEA alone is sufficient to differentiate between ovarian neoplasms and ovarian metastases. Copyright © 2018 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
650    _2
$a mladiství $7 D000293
650    _2
$a dospělí $7 D000328
650    _2
$a senioři $7 D000368
650    _2
$a senioři nad 80 let $7 D000369
650    _2
$a biologické markery $x krev $7 D015415
650    _2
$a antigen CA-125 $x krev $7 D018394
650    _2
$a karcinoembryonální antigen $x krev $7 D002272
650    _2
$a epiteliální ovariální karcinom $x krev $x diagnóza $x diagnostické zobrazování $x sekundární $7 D000077216
650    _2
$a ženské pohlaví $7 D005260
650    _2
$a lidé $7 D006801
650    _2
$a lidé středního věku $7 D008875
650    _2
$a metastázy nádorů $7 D009362
650    _2
$a nádory vaječníků $x krev $x diagnóza $x diagnostické zobrazování $x patologie $7 D010051
650    _2
$a prediktivní hodnota testů $7 D011237
650    _2
$a ROC křivka $7 D012372
650    _2
$a ultrasonografie $7 D014463
650    _2
$a mladý dospělý $7 D055815
655    _2
$a hodnotící studie $7 D023362
655    _2
$a časopisecké články $7 D016428
700    1_
$a Pasciuto, T $u Dipartimento Scienze della Salute della Donna e del Bambino, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli, IRCCS, Rome, Italy.
700    1_
$a Djokovic, D $u Istituto di Ginecologia e Ostericia Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome, Italy.
700    1_
$a Di Legge, A $u Dipartimento Scienze della Salute della Donna e del Bambino, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli, IRCCS, Rome, Italy.
700    1_
$a Granato, V $u Istituto di Ginecologia e Ostericia Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome, Italy.
700    1_
$a Moruzzi, M C $u Dipartimento Scienze della Salute della Donna e del Bambino, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli, IRCCS, Rome, Italy. Gynecological Oncology Center, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic.
700    1_
$a Mancari, R $u Preventive Gynecology Unit, Division of Gynecology, European Institute of Oncology, Milan, Italy.
700    1_
$a Zannoni, G F $u Institute of Histopathology, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome, Italy.
700    1_
$a Fischerova, D $u Gynecological Oncology Center, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic.
700    1_
$a Franchi, D $u Preventive Gynecology Unit, Division of Gynecology, European Institute of Oncology, Milan, Italy.
700    1_
$a Scambia, G $u Dipartimento Scienze della Salute della Donna e del Bambino, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli, IRCCS, Rome, Italy.
700    1_
$a Testa, A C $u Istituto di Ginecologia e Ostericia Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome, Italy.
773    0_
$w MED00010717 $t Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology $x 1469-0705 $g Roč. 53, č. 1 (2019), s. 116-123
856    41
$u https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29978587 $y Pubmed
910    __
$a ABA008 $b sig $c sign $y a $z 0
990    __
$a 20190405 $b ABA008
991    __
$a 20190408082947 $b ABA008
999    __
$a ok $b bmc $g 1391877 $s 1050872
BAS    __
$a 3
BAS    __
$a PreBMC
BMC    __
$a 2019 $b 53 $c 1 $d 116-123 $i 1469-0705 $m Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology $n Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol $x MED00010717
LZP    __
$a Pubmed-20190405

Najít záznam

Citační ukazatele

Nahrávání dat ...

Možnosti archivace

Nahrávání dat ...