A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Comparison of four malignancy risk indices in the preoperative evaluation of patients with pelvic masses. | LitMetric

Comparison of four malignancy risk indices in the preoperative evaluation of patients with pelvic masses.

Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol

Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Kochi Medical School, Kohasu, Oko, Nankoku, Kochi 783-8505, Japan.

Published: June 2009

AI Article Synopsis

  • The study evaluated the effectiveness of four malignancy risk indices (RMI 1-4) in differentiating between benign and malignant pelvic masses in women.
  • The research involved 253 women who underwent surgery for pelvic masses, analyzing factors like menopausal status and CA125 serum levels.
  • RMI 4 was found to be the most accurate index, with high sensitivity (86.8%) and specificity (91.0%), making it a reliable tool for use in both specialized and general gynecology settings.

Article Abstract

Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the ability of four malignancy risk indices (RMI 1, RMI 2, RMI 3, and RMI 4), incorporating menopausal status, serum CA125 levels, and ultrasound findings, to discriminate a benign from a malignant pelvic mass.

Study Design: This is a retrospective study of 253 women admitted to the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology of Kochi Medical School, between January 2002 and April 2005 for surgical exploration of pelvic masses. To diagnose ovarian cancer, the sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value of serum CA125, ultrasound findings and menopausal status were taken separately and combined into RMI 1, RMI 2, RMI 3, and RMI 4.

Results: This study confirms that, for the diagnosis of malignancy, four malignancy risk indices were more accurate than menopausal status, serum CA125 levels, and ultrasound findings separately. The accuracy of the RMI 4 was better than RMI 1 (P=0.0013), RMI 2 (P=0.0009) and RMI 3 (P=0.0013). The RMI 4 at a cutoff level of 450 yielded a sensitivity of 86.8%, a specificity of 91.0%, a positive predictive value of 63.5%, a negative predictive value of 97.5%, and an accuracy of 90.4%.

Conclusion: We found that, in the discrimination between benign and malignant pelvic disease, the RMI 4 method was more reliable than RMI 1, RMI 2 and RMI 3. The RMI 4 method is a simple technique that can be used in gynecology clinics as well as less-specialized centers.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2009.02.048DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

rmi rmi
36
rmi
18
malignancy risk
12
risk indices
12
menopausal status
12
serum ca125
12
ultrasound findings
12
pelvic masses
8
status serum
8
ca125 levels
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!