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?

Yoshida, Adriana; Derchain, Sophie; Pitta, Denise Rocha; Andrade, Liliana Aparecida Lucci De Angelo; Sarian, Luís Otávio

doi:10.1016/j.ygyno.2016.01.023

Cited by 33 publications

(67 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…74,75 The FDA has approved the use of HE4 and CA 125 for estimating the risk for ovarian cancer in women with a pelvic mass, however, the NCCN Panel does not currently recommend the use of these biomarkers for determining the status of an undiagnosed pelvic mass. [76][77][78][79] Although no direct evidence exists that chest radiography or CT is necessary, panel members felt that it should be part of the overall evaluation of a patient before surgical staging if clinically indicated. Gastrointestinal tract evaluation should be done for mucinous histology to determine if patients have metastases to the ovary or primary mucinous carcinoma of the ovary (see "Mucinous Carcinomas," page 1152).…”

Section: Recommended Workupmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ovarian Cancer, Version 1.2016, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology

Morgan

Armstrong

Alvarez

et al. 2016

J Natl Compr Canc Netw

307

233

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Recommended Workupmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ovarian Cancer, Version 1.2016, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology

Morgan

Armstrong

Alvarez

et al. 2016

J Natl Compr Canc Netw

307

233

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…As a predictive index, CPH-I is calculated which is composed of CA125, HE4, and age of patients who were found with adnexal mass. Karlsen [6] and Yoshida [9] indicated that CPH-I has high AUC for the prediction of ovarian cancer (the AUC of CPH-I is 0.959 and 0.960). However, CPH-I which is a predictive model based on biomarkers and clinical information might only lead to a misdiagnosis when used to differentiate ovarian cancer from benign disease.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Predictive Value of the Combination of Copenhagen Index and Sonographic Morphology Scores in the Detection of Ovarian Cancer in Women with Adnexal Masses

Tian

et al. 2020

SN Compr. Clin. Med.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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. Keywords Ovarian cancer. Copenhagen index. Ultrasound scoring. Risk of malignancy index This article is part of the Topical Collection on Medicine Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (

show abstract

“…However, when all ovarian malignant tumors (epithelial OC, borderline tumors, ovarian metastases and nonepithelial OC) are included in the analysis, the performances of both CPH-I and ROMA result significantly reduced (90).…”

Section: From Single-marker Diagnostics To Multivariate Index Assaysmentioning

confidence: 99%

Circulating biomarkers in epithelial ovarian cancer diagnosis: from present to future perspective

Montagnana¹,

Benati²,

Danese³

2017

Ann. Transl. Med.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ovarian cancer (OC) represents the most lethal gynecological cancer and the poor prognosis is often attributable to late diagnosis. The diagnostic approach to woman presenting with pelvic mass is difficult and differential diagnosis often requires invasive histological examination. Serum CA125 and HE4, as well as the most of the other serum biomarkers discovered and validated, are not sufficiently sensitive and specific to make early diagnosis. Moreover, conflicting results exist about the improvement of diagnostic performance by using multivariate index assays, developed by combining circulating biomarkers with other variables (i.e., ultrasound and/or menopausal status and/or age), in comparison to CA125 or HE4 alone. In the last years, several studies focused on the microRNAs (miRs), short single-stranded non-coding RNA that regulate several messenger RNAs (mRNAs). As in other cancer types, the aberrant miRs expression has been demonstrated in gynecological cancers, in both tissues and serum samples. In particular, the diagnostic performance of single or miRs panels resulted very high. However, to date, despite the potential clinical utility has been demonstrated, none of these miRs has been validated in large OC populations.

show abstract

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?

Cited by 33 publications

References 24 publications

Ovarian Cancer, Version 1.2016, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology

Ovarian Cancer, Version 1.2016, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology

The Predictive Value of the Combination of Copenhagen Index and Sonographic Morphology Scores in the Detection of Ovarian Cancer in Women with Adnexal Masses

Circulating biomarkers in epithelial ovarian cancer diagnosis: from present to future perspective

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About