评估人附睾蛋白4、卵巢恶性肿瘤风险算法和恶性肿瘤风险指数效率,以提高区分良性和恶性附件肿块的敏感性和特异性

IF 0.9 Q3 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL Journal of Laboratory Physicians Pub Date : 2023-09-25 DOI:10.1055/s-0043-1775590
Sonia Chawla, Gitanjali Goyal, Seema Grover, Sarita Nibhoria, Jaswant Kaur
{"title":"评估人附睾蛋白4、卵巢恶性肿瘤风险算法和恶性肿瘤风险指数效率,以提高区分良性和恶性附件肿块的敏感性和特异性","authors":"Sonia Chawla, Gitanjali Goyal, Seema Grover, Sarita Nibhoria, Jaswant Kaur","doi":"10.1055/s-0043-1775590","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Background Inadequacy of effective sensitive and specific screening modalities results in late-stage diagnosis of ovarian cancer. Cancer Antigen-125 (CA-125) individually possesses limited specificity for differentiating adnexal masses. The present study aimed to evaluate the Human Epididymis Protein 4 (HE4), Risk of Ovarian Malignancy Algorithm (ROMA), and Risk of Malignancy Index (RMI) for ameliorating sensitivity and specificity for differentiating benign from malignant adnexal masses. Materials and Methods This study was conducted on 96 preoperative women with suspected adnexal mass (patients) and 48 healthy females without adnexal mass (controls) for the duration of 2 years. Both study participants were divided into two groups, pre- and postmenopausal. CA-125 and HE4 were done using commercially available kits. ROMA% and RMI were calculated. We validated their performances using histopathology as the gold standard. The statistical analysis was done using SPSS 21, Kruskal–Wallis, and Tukey's tests. The best cutoff points to best values of sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) were also evaluated. Results For differentiating benign from malignant masses in the premenopausal group, the sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and area under the curve (AUC) were 93.7%, 78.3%, 65.2%, 96.6%, 0.892 for CA-125; 87.5%, 83.7%, 70%, 93.9%, 0.926 for HE4; 93.7%, 70.2%, 57.6%, 96.2%, 0.927 for ROMA; and 68.7%, 86.4%, 68.7%, 86.5%, 0.916 for RMI. While in the postmenopausal group, the sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and AUC were 92.3%, 76.4%, 85.7%, 86.6%, 0.907 for CA-125; 78.5%, 94%, 95.6%, 80%, 0.955 for HE4; 92.3%, 94.1%, 96%, 88.8%, 0.968 for ROMA; and 88.4%, 88.2%, 92%, 83.3%, 0.943 for RMI. Conclusion For differentiating benign from malignant masses more specifically in women with a suspected adnexal mass, ROMA and HE4 appear to be more effective than CA-125.","PeriodicalId":16149,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Laboratory Physicians","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluation of Human Epididymis Protein 4, Risk of Ovarian Malignancy Algorithm, and Risk of Malignancy Index Efficiency for Ameliorating Sensitivity and Specificity for Differentiating Benign from Malignant Adnexal Masses\",\"authors\":\"Sonia Chawla, Gitanjali Goyal, Seema Grover, Sarita Nibhoria, Jaswant Kaur\",\"doi\":\"10.1055/s-0043-1775590\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract Background Inadequacy of effective sensitive and specific screening modalities results in late-stage diagnosis of ovarian cancer. Cancer Antigen-125 (CA-125) individually possesses limited specificity for differentiating adnexal masses. The present study aimed to evaluate the Human Epididymis Protein 4 (HE4), Risk of Ovarian Malignancy Algorithm (ROMA), and Risk of Malignancy Index (RMI) for ameliorating sensitivity and specificity for differentiating benign from malignant adnexal masses. Materials and Methods This study was conducted on 96 preoperative women with suspected adnexal mass (patients) and 48 healthy females without adnexal mass (controls) for the duration of 2 years. Both study participants were divided into two groups, pre- and postmenopausal. CA-125 and HE4 were done using commercially available kits. ROMA% and RMI were calculated. We validated their performances using histopathology as the gold standard. The statistical analysis was done using SPSS 21, Kruskal–Wallis, and Tukey's tests. The best cutoff points to best values of sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) were also evaluated. Results For differentiating benign from malignant masses in the premenopausal group, the sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and area under the curve (AUC) were 93.7%, 78.3%, 65.2%, 96.6%, 0.892 for CA-125; 87.5%, 83.7%, 70%, 93.9%, 0.926 for HE4; 93.7%, 70.2%, 57.6%, 96.2%, 0.927 for ROMA; and 68.7%, 86.4%, 68.7%, 86.5%, 0.916 for RMI. While in the postmenopausal group, the sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and AUC were 92.3%, 76.4%, 85.7%, 86.6%, 0.907 for CA-125; 78.5%, 94%, 95.6%, 80%, 0.955 for HE4; 92.3%, 94.1%, 96%, 88.8%, 0.968 for ROMA; and 88.4%, 88.2%, 92%, 83.3%, 0.943 for RMI. Conclusion For differentiating benign from malignant masses more specifically in women with a suspected adnexal mass, ROMA and HE4 appear to be more effective than CA-125.\",\"PeriodicalId\":16149,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Laboratory Physicians\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Laboratory Physicians\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0043-1775590\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Laboratory Physicians","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0043-1775590","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景缺乏有效、敏感和特异的筛查方式导致卵巢癌的晚期诊断。癌抗原-125 (CA-125)单独对鉴别附件肿块具有有限的特异性。本研究旨在评估人类附睾蛋白4 (HE4)、卵巢恶性肿瘤风险算法(ROMA)和恶性肿瘤风险指数(RMI)在区分良性和恶性附件肿块方面的敏感性和特异性。材料与方法本研究对96例术前疑似附件肿块的女性(患者)和48例无附件肿块的健康女性(对照组)进行为期2年的研究。两项研究的参与者都被分为两组,绝经前和绝经后。CA-125和HE4使用市售试剂盒进行检测。计算ROMA%和RMI。我们用组织病理学作为金标准来验证他们的表现。采用SPSS 21、Kruskal-Wallis和Tukey检验进行统计分析。并对敏感性、特异性、阳性预测值(PPV)和阴性预测值(NPV)的最佳临界值进行了评价。结果CA-125鉴别绝经前组肿块良恶性的敏感性、特异性、PPV、NPV、曲线下面积(AUC)分别为93.7%、78.3%、65.2%、96.6%、0.892;HE4为87.5%、83.7%、70%、93.9%、0.926;罗姆人93.7%、70.2%、57.6%、96.2%、0.927;RMI为68.7%、86.4%、68.7%、86.5%、0.916。而在绝经后组,CA-125的敏感性、特异性、PPV、NPV和AUC分别为92.3%、76.4%、85.7%、86.6%、0.907;HE4分别为78.5%、94%、95.6%、80%、0.955;罗姆人92.3%、94.1%、96%、88.8%、0.968;RMI为88.4%、88.2%、92%、83.3%、0.943。结论在疑似附件肿块的女性中,ROMA和HE4比CA-125更有效地鉴别肿块的良恶性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Evaluation of Human Epididymis Protein 4, Risk of Ovarian Malignancy Algorithm, and Risk of Malignancy Index Efficiency for Ameliorating Sensitivity and Specificity for Differentiating Benign from Malignant Adnexal Masses
Abstract Background Inadequacy of effective sensitive and specific screening modalities results in late-stage diagnosis of ovarian cancer. Cancer Antigen-125 (CA-125) individually possesses limited specificity for differentiating adnexal masses. The present study aimed to evaluate the Human Epididymis Protein 4 (HE4), Risk of Ovarian Malignancy Algorithm (ROMA), and Risk of Malignancy Index (RMI) for ameliorating sensitivity and specificity for differentiating benign from malignant adnexal masses. Materials and Methods This study was conducted on 96 preoperative women with suspected adnexal mass (patients) and 48 healthy females without adnexal mass (controls) for the duration of 2 years. Both study participants were divided into two groups, pre- and postmenopausal. CA-125 and HE4 were done using commercially available kits. ROMA% and RMI were calculated. We validated their performances using histopathology as the gold standard. The statistical analysis was done using SPSS 21, Kruskal–Wallis, and Tukey's tests. The best cutoff points to best values of sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) were also evaluated. Results For differentiating benign from malignant masses in the premenopausal group, the sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and area under the curve (AUC) were 93.7%, 78.3%, 65.2%, 96.6%, 0.892 for CA-125; 87.5%, 83.7%, 70%, 93.9%, 0.926 for HE4; 93.7%, 70.2%, 57.6%, 96.2%, 0.927 for ROMA; and 68.7%, 86.4%, 68.7%, 86.5%, 0.916 for RMI. While in the postmenopausal group, the sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and AUC were 92.3%, 76.4%, 85.7%, 86.6%, 0.907 for CA-125; 78.5%, 94%, 95.6%, 80%, 0.955 for HE4; 92.3%, 94.1%, 96%, 88.8%, 0.968 for ROMA; and 88.4%, 88.2%, 92%, 83.3%, 0.943 for RMI. Conclusion For differentiating benign from malignant masses more specifically in women with a suspected adnexal mass, ROMA and HE4 appear to be more effective than CA-125.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Laboratory Physicians
Journal of Laboratory Physicians MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL-
自引率
0.00%
发文量
99
审稿时长
31 weeks
期刊最新文献
Experience of rigorous practice of antimicrobial stewardship program and its impact on antibiotic consumption A new era for Journal of Laboratory Physicians Sensitivity and specificity of newly generated monoclonal antibodies to detect novel antigens of Mycobacterium tuberculosis for the diagnosis of all forms of tuberculosis Martin’s formula is best to calculate low-density lipoprotein cholesterol Performance of modified colistin broth disc elution vis-a-vis broth microdilution method for susceptibility testing of Enterobacterales
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1