Abstract
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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2018. CA Cancer J Clin. 2018;68(1):7–30. https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21442.
Chen W, Zheng R, Baade PD, Zhang S, Zeng H, Bray F, et al. Cancer statistics in China, 2015. CA Cancer J Clin. 2016;66(2):115–32. https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21338.
Reid BM, Permuth JB, Sellers TA. Epidemiology of ovarian cancer: a review. Cancer Biol Med. 2017;14(1):9–32. https://doi.org/10.20892/j.issn.2095-3941.2016.0084.
Slaughter K, Holman LL, Thomas EL, Gunderson CC, Lauer JK, Ding K, et al. Primary and acquired platinum-resistance among women with high grade serous ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2016;142(2):225–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2016.05.020.
Jacobs I, Oram D, Fairbanks J, Turner J, Frost C, Grudzinskas JG. A risk of malignancy index incorporating CA 125, ultrasound and menopausal status for the accurate preoperative diagnosis of ovarian cancer. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1990;97(10):922–9.
Karlsen MA, Hogdall EVS, Christensen IJ, Borgfeldt C, Kalapotharakos G, Zdrazilova-Dubska L, et al. A novel diagnostic index combining HE4, CA125 and age may improve triage of women with suspected ovarian cancer - an international multicenter study in women with an ovarian mass. Gynecol Oncol. 2015;138(3):640–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2015.06.021.
Finkler NJ, Benacerraf B, Lavin PT, Wojciechowski C, Knapp RC. Comparison of serum CA 125, clinical impression, and ultrasound in the preoperative evaluation of ovarian masses. Obstet Gynecol. 1988;72(4):659–64.
Kurman R, Carcangiu ML, Herrington CS, Young RH. WHO classification of tumours of female reproductive organs. Lyon: IARC Press; 2014.
Yoshida A, Derchain SF, Pitta DR, Andrade LALD, Sarian LO. Comparing the Copenhagen index (CPH-I) and risk of ovarian malignancy algorithm (ROMA): two equivalent ways to differentiate malignant from benign ovarian tumors before surgery? Gynecol Oncol. 2016;140(3):481–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2016.01.023.
Wanapirak C, Srisupundit K, Tongsong T. Sonographic morphology scores (SMS) for differentiation between benign and malignant adnexal masses. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2006;7(3):407–10.
Krascsenits G, Balazs B, Dudnyikova A, Purcsi K, Orosz E, Pete I. Investigating the predictive value of RMI and ROMA indices in patients with ovarian tumors of uncertain dignity. Magy Onkol. 2016;60(4):320–7.
Funding
This work was supported by grants from the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 81402127), Nanfang hospital high level NSFC match funding (Grant No, 2014030), and Guangdong Medical Science and Technology research funding (Grant No. A2018138).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
Shi-jing Lu: project development, data collection and analysis, manuscript writing; Yue-qin Tian: data collection, manuscript writing; Jie-xing He: data collection, manuscript writing; Fan-liang Meng: project development, manuscript writing. Shi-jing Lu, Yue-qin Tian and Jie-xing He contributed equally to this article.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Informed Consent
Informed consent of medical records data used as research purpose (MRD-RP) agreement was obtained before admission.
Ethical Approval
This study was approved by the local ethics committee.
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
This article is part of the Topical Collection on Medicine
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Lu, Sj., Tian, Yq., He, Jx. et al. The Predictive Value of the Combination of Copenhagen Index and Sonographic Morphology Scores in the Detection of Ovarian Cancer in Women with Adnexal Masses. SN Compr. Clin. Med. 2, 265–271 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s42399-020-00227-x
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s42399-020-00227-x