• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

附件包块鉴别诊断中使用的恶性风险指数评分系统(1-4)的比较评估

Comparative evaluation of the risk of malignancy index scoring systems (1-4) used in differential diagnosis of adnexal masses.

作者信息

Ozbay Pelin Ozun, Ekinci Tekin, Caltekin Melike Demir, Yilmaz Hasan Taylan, Temur Muzaffer, Yilmaz Ozgur, Uysal Selda, Demirel Emine, Kelekci Sefa

机构信息

Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Aydin Obstetrics and Pediatrics Hospital, Aydin, Turkey E-mail :

出版信息

Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2015;16(1):345-9. doi: 10.7314/apjcp.2015.16.1.345.

DOI:10.7314/apjcp.2015.16.1.345
PMID:25640377
Abstract

BACKGROUND

To determine the cut-off values of the preoperative risk of malignancy index (RMI) used in differentiating benign or malignant adnexal masses and to determine their significance in differential diagnosis by comparison of different systems.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

191 operated women were assessed retrospectively. RMI of 1, 2, 3 and 4; cut-off values for an effective benign or malignant differentiation together with sensitivity, specificity, negative and positive predictive values were calculated.

RESULTS

Cut-off value for RMI 1 was found to be 250; there was significant (p<0.001) compatibility at this level with sensitivity of 60%, positive predictive value (PPV) of 75%, specificity of 93%, negative predictive value (NPV) of 88% and an overall compliance rate of 85%. When RMI 2 and 3 was obtained with a cut-off value of 200, there was significant (p<0.001) compatibility at this level for RMI 2 with sensitivity of 67%, PPV of 67%, specificity of 89%, NPV of 89%, histopathologic correlation of 84% while RMI 3 had significant (p<0.001) compatibility at the same level with sensitivity of 63%, PPV of 69%, specificity of 91%, NPV of 88% and a histopathologic correlation of 84%. Significant (p<0.001) compatibility for RMI 4 with a sensitivity of 67%, PPV of 73%, specificity of 92%, NPV of 89% and a histopathologic correlation of 86% was obtained at the cut-off level 400.

CONCLUSIONS

RMI have a significant predictability in differentiating benign and malignant adnexal masses, thus can effectively be used in clinical practice.

摘要

背景

确定用于区分附件包块良恶性的术前恶性风险指数(RMI)的临界值,并通过比较不同系统来确定其在鉴别诊断中的意义。

材料与方法

对191例接受手术的女性进行回顾性评估。计算RMI为1、2、3和4时有效区分良恶性的临界值以及敏感度、特异度、阴性和阳性预测值。

结果

发现RMI 1的临界值为250;在此水平上存在显著(p<0.001)的一致性,敏感度为60%,阳性预测值(PPV)为75%,特异度为93%,阴性预测值(NPV)为88%,总体符合率为85%。当RMI 2和3的临界值为200时,RMI 2在此水平上存在显著(p<0.001)的一致性,敏感度为67%,PPV为67%,特异度为89%,NPV为89%,组织病理学相关性为84%;而RMI 3在此相同水平上存在显著(p<0.001)的一致性,敏感度为63%,PPV为69%,特异度为91%,NPV为88%,组织病理学相关性为84%。RMI 4在临界值为400时存在显著(p<0.001)的一致性,敏感度为67%,PPV为73%,特异度为92%,NPV为89%,组织病理学相关性为86%。

结论

RMI在区分附件包块良恶性方面具有显著的预测性,因此可有效地应用于临床实践。

相似文献

1
Comparative evaluation of the risk of malignancy index scoring systems (1-4) used in differential diagnosis of adnexal masses.附件包块鉴别诊断中使用的恶性风险指数评分系统(1-4)的比较评估
Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2015;16(1):345-9. doi: 10.7314/apjcp.2015.16.1.345.
2
Should cut-off values of the risk of malignancy index be changed for evaluation of adnexal masses in Asian and Pacific populations?在亚洲及太平洋地区人群中,评估附件包块时,恶性肿瘤风险指数的截断值是否应该改变?
Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2013;14(9):5455-9. doi: 10.7314/apjcp.2013.14.9.5455.
3
Risk of malignancy index validity assessment in premenopausal and postmenopausal women with adnexal tumors.绝经前和绝经后附件肿瘤患者的恶性肿瘤风险指数有效性评估。
Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol. 2013 Jun;52(2):253-7. doi: 10.1016/j.tjog.2013.04.017.
4
Evaluation of the risk malignancy index diagnostic value in patients with adnexal masses.附件包块患者中风险恶性肿瘤指数诊断价值的评估
Vojnosanit Pregl. 2011 Jul;68(7):589-93. doi: 10.2298/vsp1107589t.
5
Addition of parity to the risk of malignancy index score in evaluating adnexal masses.在评估附件肿块时,将奇偶性添加到恶性肿瘤风险指数评分中。
Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol. 2014 Dec;53(4):518-22. doi: 10.1016/j.tjog.2014.08.003.
6
Evaluation of the importance of the serum levels of CA-125, CA15-3, CA-19-9, carcinoembryonic antigen and alpha fetoprotein for distinguishing benign and malignant adnexal masses and contribution of different test combinations to diagnostic accuracy.评估血清CA-125、CA15-3、CA-19-9、癌胚抗原和甲胎蛋白水平对于鉴别附件肿块良恶性的重要性以及不同检测组合对诊断准确性的贡献。
Eur J Gynaecol Oncol. 2013;34(6):540-4.
7
The risk of malignancy index in discrimination of adnexal masses.鉴别附件包块时的恶性肿瘤风险指数
Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2007 Mar;96(3):186-91. doi: 10.1016/j.ijgo.2006.10.006. Epub 2007 Feb 5.
8
Role of a risk of malignancy index in clinical approaches to adnexal masses.恶性肿瘤风险指数在附件包块临床处理中的作用
Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2014;15(18):7793-7. doi: 10.7314/apjcp.2014.15.18.7793.
9
A preliminary study: The sequential use of the risk malignancy index and contrast-enhanced ultrasonography in differential diagnosis of adnexal masses.一项初步研究:风险恶性指数与超声造影在附件包块鉴别诊断中的序贯应用
Medicine (Baltimore). 2018 Jul;97(29):e11536. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000011536.
10
Sonographic discrimination between benign and malignant adnexal masses in premenopause.绝经前附件包块良恶性的超声鉴别
Ultraschall Med. 2014 Aug;35(4):339-44. doi: 10.1055/s-0033-1335728. Epub 2013 Jun 17.

引用本文的文献

1
Differentiation of Benign from Malignant Adnexal Masses by Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced MRI (DCE-MRI): Quantitative and Semi-quantitative analysis at 3-Tesla MRI.通过动态对比增强磁共振成像(DCE-MRI)鉴别良性与恶性附件肿块:3特斯拉磁共振成像的定量和半定量分析
Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2019 Apr 29;20(4):1073-1079. doi: 10.31557/APJCP.2019.20.4.1073.