Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Computed tomography adnexal mass score to estimate risk for ovarian cancer

  • General Gynecology
  • Published:
Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective

We wish to develop a CT scan-based scoring system which estimates the probability of adnexal mass malignancy.

Methods

Patients (324) undergoing adnexal mass surgery were recruited into the study from June 1, 2002, to January 1, 2009. All study patients had a preoperative CT scan and serum CA-125 test. CT scan abnormalities included any solid tumor components, ascites, and pelvic or abdominal lymphadenopathy and omental caking.

Results

There were 225 (70 %) benign and 99 (30 %) malignant ovarian masses. Using logistic regression with the area under the curve of the receiver operating curve of 82 %, the cancer probability was determined by the equation.

$$ \frac{{{\text{e}}^{{ - 3. 6 3 7 2 { } + \, 0.0 30 6 { }* \, \left( {\text{A}} \right) \, + \, 0.00 1 { }* \, \left( {\text{B}} \right) \, + \, 0.{ 876 }* \, \left( {\text{C}} \right) + 1. 5 5 1 { }* \, \left( {\text{D}} \right) \, + { 1}. 7 3 7 7 { }* \, \left( {\text{E}} \right) \, + { 2}. 7 6 { }* \, \left( {\text{F}} \right)}} }}{{ 1+ {\text{e}}^{{ - 3. 6 3 7 2 { } + \, 0.0 30 6 { }* \, \left( {\text{A}} \right) \, + \, 0.00 1 { }* \, \left( {\text{B}} \right) \, + \, 0. 8 7 6 { }* \, \left( {\text{C}} \right) \, + { 1}. 5 5 1 { }* \, \left( {\text{D}} \right) \, + { 1}. 7 3 7 7 { }* \, \left( {\text{E}} \right) \, + { 2}. 7 6 { }* \, \left( {\text{F}} \right)}} }} $$

where A = age, B = CA-125, C = solid adnexal mass is 1 and cystic is 0, D = ascites is 1, E = omental caking is 1 and absence is 0, F = node size ≥1 cm is 1 and <1 cm is 0 value. The natural logarithm e is a constant [2.718281828]. For example, for a woman of age 60, CA-125 = 50 U/mL, with solid adnexal mass, ascites, omental caking, and lymphadenopathy, the probability is 0.994. Hence, this woman has a 99.4 % probability of having cancer.

Conclusion

The computed tomography adnexal mass score combines CT scan findings, CA-125, and patient age into an equation to predict the malignant probability of an adnexal mass.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Howlader N, Noone AM, Krapcho M, Neyman N, Aminou R, Waldron W, Altekruse SF, Kosary CL, Ruhl J, Tatalovich Z, Cho H, Mariotto A, Eisner MP, Lewis DR, Chen HS, Feuer EJ, Cronin KA, Edwards BK [eds]. SEER Cancer Statistics Review, 1975-2008, National Cancer Institute. Bethesda, MD, http://seer.cancer.gov/csr/1975_2008/, based on November 2010 SEER data submission, posted to the SEER web site, 2011

  2. Myers ER, Bastian LA, Havrilesky LJ, et al. (2006) Management of adnexal mass. Evidence report/technology assessment no. 130. AHRQ publication 06-E004.2

  3. Ferrazzi E, Zanetta G, Dordoni D, Berlanda N, Mezzopane R, Lissoni AA, Lissoni G (1997) Transvaginal ultrasonographic characterization of ovarian masses. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 10(3):192–197

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Merz E, Weber G, Bahlmann F, Kiesslich R (1998) A new sonomorphologic scoring system [Mainz Score] for the assessment of ovarian tumors using transvaginal ultrasonography. Part I: a comparison between the scoring-system and the assessment by an experienced sonographer. Ultraschall Med 19(3):99–107

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Weber G, Merz E, Bahlmann F, Leber AM (1999) A new sonomorphologic scoring-system [Mainz score] for the assessment of ovarian tumors using transvaginal ultrasonography. Part II: a comparison between the scoring-system and the assessment by an experienced sonographer in postmenopausal women. Ultraschall Med 20(1):2–8

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. DePriest PD, Shenson D, Fried A, Hunter JE, Andrews SJ, Gallion HH, Pavlik EJ, Kryscio RJ, Jr Van Nagell JR (1993) A morphology index based on sonographic findings in ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol 51(1):7–11

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Ueland FR, DePriest PD, Pavlik EJ, Kryscio RJ, Jr Van Nagell JR (2003) Preoperative differentiation of malignant from benign ovarian tumors: the efficacy of morphology indexing and Doppler flow sonography. Gynecol Oncol 91(1):46–50

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Sawicki W, Spiewankiewicz B, Cendrowski K, Stelmachow J (2001) Preoperative discrimination between malignant and benign adnexal masses with transvaginal ultrasonography and color blood flow imaging. Eur J Gynaecol Oncol 22(2):137–142

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Twickler DM, Forte TB, Santos-Ramos R, McIntire D, Harris P, Scott D (1999) The ovarian tumor index predicts risk for malignancy. Cancer 86(11):2280–2290

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Varras M (2004) Benefits and limitations of ultrasonographic evaluation of uterine adnexal lesions in early detection of ovarian cancer. Clin Exp Obstet Gynecol 31(2):85–98

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. ACOG practice bulletin no. 83, 2007. Management of adnexal mass

  12. Timmerman D, Ameye L, Fischerova D, Epstein E, Melis GB, Guerriero S, Van Holsbeke C, Savelli L, Fruscio R, Lissoni AA, Testa AC, Veldman J, Vergote I, Van Huffel S, Bourne T, Valentin L (2010) Simple ultrasound rules to distinguish between benign and malignant adnexal masses before surgery. BMJ 341:c6839

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Buy JN, Ghossain MA, Sciot C, Bazot M, Guinet C, Prévot S, Hugol D, Laromiguiere M, Truc JB, Poitout P (1991) Epithelial tumors of the ovary: CT findings and correlation with US (1991). Radiology 178(3):811–818

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Tempany CM, Zou KH, Ilverman SG, Brown DL, Kurtz AB, McNeil BJ (2000) Staging of advanced ovarian cancer: comparison of imaging modalities–report from the Radiological Diagnostic Oncology Group. Radiology 215(3):761–767

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Brooks SE (1994) Preoperative evaluation of patients with suspected ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol 55(3 Pt 2):S80–S90

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Kawamoto S, Urban BA, Fishman EK (1999) CT scan of epithelial ovarian tumors. Radiographics. 19 Spec No:S85–102; quiz S263–264

  17. Padilla LA, Radosevich DM, Milad MP (2005) Limitation of pelvic exam for evaluation of the female pelvic organs. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 88:84–88

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Timmerman D, Van Calster B, Testa AC, Guerriero S, Fischerova D, Lissoni AA, Van Holsbeke C, Fruscio R, Czekierdowski A, Jurkovic D, Savelli L, Vergote I, Bourne T, Van Huffel S, Valentin L (2010) Ovarian cancer prediction in adnexal masses using ultrasound-based logistic regression models: a temporal and external validation study by the IOTA group. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 36(2):226–234

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Ware Miller R, Smith A, Desimone CP, Seamon LG, Goodrich S, Podzielinski I, Sokoll L, Jr Van Nagell JR, Ueland FR (2011) Performance of the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecologists’ ovarian tumor referral guidelines with a multivariate index assay. Obstet Gynecol 117(6):1268–1306

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Ueland FR, Desimone CP, Seamon LG, Miller RA, Goodrich S, Podzielinski I, Sokoll L, Smith A, Jr van Nagell JR (2011) Effectiveness of a multivariate index assay in the preoperative assessment of ovarian tumors. Obstet Gynecol 117(6):1289–1297

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Tsili AC, Dalkalitsis N, Paraskevaidis E, Tsampoulas K (2010) Multi-detector CT features of benign adnexal lesions. Acad Radiol 17(1):31–38

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Tsili AC, Tsampoulas C, Charisiadi A, Kalef-Ezra J, Dousias V, Paraskevaidis E, Efremidis SC (2008) Adnexal masses: accuracy of detection and differentiation with multidetector computed tomography. Gynecol Oncol 110(1):22–31

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Kubik-Huch RA, Dorffler W, von Schulthess GK, Marincek B, Kochli OR, Seifert B, Haller U, Steinert HC (2000) Value of [18F]-FDG positron emission tomography, computed tomography, and magnetic resonance imaging in diagnosing primary and recurrent ovarian carcinoma. Eur Radiol 10(5):761–767

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Kormano M, Alanen A, Gronroos M (1984) Predicting malignancy of suspected ovarian tumours by CT. Eur J Radiol 4(1):61–64

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Rohde U, Steinbrich W (1983) Differential diagnosis of ovarian benign and malignant tumors by CT. J Belge Radiol 66(1):9–14

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. McDonald JM, Doran S, DeSimone CP, Ueland FR, DePriest PD, Ware RA, Saunders BA, Pavlik E, Goodrich S, Kryscio RJ, van Nagell JR (2000) Predicting risk of malignancy in adnexal masses. Obstet Gynecol 115(4):687–694

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Im SS, Gordon AN, Buttin BM, Leath CA 3rd, Gostout BS, Shah C, Hatch KD, Wang J, Berman ML (2005) Validation of referral guidelines for women with pelvic masses. Obstet Gynecol 105(1):35–41

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We wish to thank Dr. David L. Armbruster for his extensive review of the study and manuscript.

Conflict of interest

Authors declare that we do not have any conflict of interests. We also state that we have full control of all primary data and that we agree to allow the Journal to review our data if requested.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Tennessee, West Clinic, 1588 Union Avenue, Memphis, TN, 38104, USA

    Joseph T. Santoso

  2. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Tennessee, Memphis, TN, USA

    Aimee Robinson

  3. St Jude Children’s Research Hospital, Memphis, TN, USA

    Sri Suganda

  4. Department of Surgery, University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, TN, USA

    Sirinya Praservit

  5. Department of Preventive Medicine, University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, TN, USA

    Jim Y. Wan

  6. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky

    Fred Ueland

Authors
  1. Joseph T. Santoso
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Aimee Robinson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sri Suganda
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Sirinya Praservit
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Jim Y. Wan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Fred Ueland
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Joseph T. Santoso.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Santoso, J.T., Robinson, A., Suganda, S. et al. Computed tomography adnexal mass score to estimate risk for ovarian cancer. Arch Gynecol Obstet 289, 595–600 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-013-3013-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-013-3013-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation