To compare diagnostic values of CPH-I (Copenhagen Index), SMS (sonographic morphology scores), RMI (risk of malignancy index), and the combination of CPH-I and SMS. This retrospective research involves 143 patients with adnexal masses who were diagnosed and managed in our institution, including 99 cases (69.2%) with benign ovarian disease and 44 cases (30.8%) with ovarian cancer. The baseline characteristics and predictive measurable variables such as patient’s age, menstrual status, serum CA125, HE4 results, and ultrasound reports were collected. We compared diagnostic values of CPH-I, SMS, RMI, and the combination of CPH-I and SMS. The area under the curve (AUC) of CPH-I, SMS, CPH-I + SMS, and RMI were 0.932, 0.916, 0.976, and 0.877, respectively. The suggested cutoffs of CPH-I, SMS, CPH-I + SMS, and RMI were 12.42%, 6.5, 0.6506, and 173.55, respectively. Moreover, the sensitivities in the prediction of ovarian cancer were 81.8%, 79.5%, 93.2%, and 84.1%, and the specificities were 96.0%, 89.9%, 93.9%, and 89.9%, respectively. The combination showed remarkably higher sensitivity in the differential diagnosis than other three predictive modalities, and higher specificity than SMS and RMI reported. It suggested that the performance of the combined modalities provides a more accurate methods in the preoperative diagnosis and differentiation of adnexal masses in women with high risk factors. However, the sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value of the combination of CPH-I and SMS require prospective evaluation and validation in a randomized, controlled trial settings in the future.

中文翻译：

---

哥本哈根指数和超声形态学评分结合的预测价值在女性附睾肿块中检测卵巢癌的价值

为了比较CPH-1（哥本哈根指数），SMS（超声形态学评分），RMI（恶性肿瘤的风险）以及CPH-1和SMS的组合的诊断价值。这项回顾性研究涉及在我们机构中诊断和治疗的143例附件包块患者，包括99例（69.2％）卵巢良性疾病和44例（30.8％）卵巢癌。收集基线特征和可预测的可测量变量，例如患者的年龄，月经状况，血清CA125，HE4结果和超声报告。我们比较了CPH-1，SMS，RMI以及CPH-1和SMS的组合的诊断价值。CPH-1，SMS，CPH-1 + SMS和RMI的曲线下面积（AUC）分别为0.932、0.916、0.976和0.877。CPH-1，SMS，CPH-1 + SMS和RMI的建议临界值为12.42％，6.5、0.6506和173.55，分别。此外，预测卵巢癌的敏感性分别为81.8％，79.5％，93.2％和84.1％，特异性分别为96.0％，89.9％，93.9％和89.9％。该组合在鉴别诊断中显示出比其他三种预测方式显着更高的敏感性，并且比SMS和RMI报告的特异性更高。这表明，结合方式的表现为高危因素妇女的术前诊断和鉴别附件包块提供了更准确的方法。但是，CPH-1和SMS结合使用的敏感性，特异性和阳性预测价值需要在未来的随机对照试验环境中进行前瞻性评估和验证。特异性分别为93.2％和84.1％，分别为96.0％，89.9％，93.9％和89.9％。该组合在鉴别诊断中显示出比其他三种预测方式显着更高的敏感性，并且比SMS和RMI报告的特异性更高。这表明，结合方式的表现为高危因素妇女的术前诊断和鉴别附件包块提供了更准确的方法。但是，CPH-1和SMS结合使用的敏感性，特异性和阳性预测价值需要在未来的随机对照试验环境中进行前瞻性评估和验证。特异性分别为93.2％和84.1％，分别为96.0％，89.9％，93.9％和89.9％。该组合在鉴别诊断中显示出比其他三种预测方式显着更高的敏感性，并且比SMS和RMI报告的特异性更高。这表明，结合方式的表现为高危因素妇女的术前诊断和鉴别附件包块提供了更准确的方法。但是，CPH-1和SMS结合使用的敏感性，特异性和阳性预测价值需要在未来的随机对照试验环境中进行前瞻性评估和验证。该组合在鉴别诊断中显示出比其他三种预测方式显着更高的敏感性，并且比SMS和RMI报告的特异性更高。这提示，结合方式的表现为高危因素女性的术前诊断和鉴别附件包块提供了更准确的方法。但是，CPH-1和SMS结合使用的敏感性，特异性和阳性预测价值需要在未来的随机对照试验环境中进行前瞻性评估和验证。该组合在鉴别诊断中显示出比其他三种预测方式显着更高的敏感性，并且比SMS和RMI报告的特异性更高。这表明，结合方式的表现为高危因素妇女的术前诊断和鉴别附件包块提供了更准确的方法。但是，CPH-1和SMS结合使用的敏感性，特异性和阳性预测价值需要在未来的随机对照试验环境中进行前瞻性评估和验证。