Assessment of CA-125 levels and imaging findings in women with suspected malignant ovarian tumors
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18203/2320-1770.ijrcog20243581Keywords:
USG, CT, CA-125, Ovarian cancerAbstract
Background: Ovarian cancer diagnosis is growing due to the prudent use of investigational methods. Imaging techniques and molecular biomarkers are the commonly used. A correct ovarian cancer staging assists gynecological oncologists in determining whether the patient required primary debulking surgery or neoadjuvant chemotherapy. The aim of the study was to evaluate the accuracy of CA-125 titre, USG of whole abdomen imaging and CT scan for diagnosis of ovarian malignancy.
Methods: A prospective, observational study was conducted Gynae Oncology Unit, Department of Obs and Gynae, Dhaka Medical College Hospital, Dhaka during January 2022 to December 2022. Total 96 patients who were diagnosed clinically as malignant ovarian tumor were included in the study.
Results: The sensitivity of malignant ovarian tumors by USG was calculated to be 89.4%, specificity was 76.7%, accuracy was 85.4%, PPV was 89.4%, and NPV was 76.7%. The validity of CA-125 in malignant ovarian tumors was demonstrated by calculating sensitivity of 75.8%, specificity of 90.0%, accuracy of 80.2%, PPV of 94.3%, and NPV of 62.8%. The sensitivity of malignant ovarian tumors by CT was calculated to be 90.9%, specificity was 86.7%, accuracy was 89.6%, PPV was 93.8%, and NPV was 81.3%. Using histology as the gold standard.
Conclusion: The results of this study demonstrate the superior diagnostic capabilities of two distinct imaging modalities (USG and CT) in determining the degree of malignant spread.
Metrics
References
Guo B, Lian W, Liu S, Cao Y, Liu J. Comparison of diagnostic values between CA125 combined with CA199 and ultrasound combined with CT in ovarian cancer. Oncol Lett. 2019;17(6):5523-8.
Suppiah S. The past, present and future of diagnostic imaging in ovarian cancer. In: Devaja O, editor. Ovarian cancer: from pathogenesis to treatment. 1st ed. 2018; 175-95.
Bray F, Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Siegel RL, Torre LA, Jemal A. Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2018;68(6):394-424.
Cancer Research UK. Ovarian cancer survival statistics. Available at: http://www.cancerresearchuk. Accessed on 23 August 2024.
Nagle CM, Francis JE, Nelson AE, Zorbas H, Luxford K, De Fazio A, et al. Reducing time to diagnosis does not improve outcomes for women with symptomatic ovarian cancer: a report from the Australian Ovarian Cancer Study Group. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29(16):2253-8.
National Cancer Intelligence Network. Routes to diagnosis 2006–2016 by year. 2019. Available at: http://www.ncin.org.uk/publications/route. Accessed on 18 August 2024.
Hamilton W, Peters TJ, Bankhead C, Sharp D. Risk of ovarian cancer in women with symptoms in primary care: population-based case-control study. BMJ. 2009;3:39.
Sundar S, Neal RD, Kehoe S. Diagnosis of ovarian cancer. BMJ. 2015;351:42-56.
National Collaborating Centre for Cancer. Ovarian cancer: the recognition and initial management of ovarian cancer (NICE Clinical Guidelines No. 122). Cardiff (UK): National Collaborating Centre for Cancer; 2011.
Usher-Smith JA, Sharp SJ, Griffin SJ. The spectrum effect in tests for risk prediction, screening, and diagnosis. BMJ. 2016;3:53.
Ledermann JA, Raja FA, Fotopoulou C, Gonzalez-Martin A, Colombo N, Sessa C. Newly diagnosed and relapsed epithelial ovarian carcinoma: ESMO clinical practice guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol. 2013;24:34-9.
Son H, Khan SM, Rahaman J, Cameron KL, Prasad-Hayes M, Chuang L, et al. Role of FDG PET/CT in staging of recurrent ovarian cancer. Radiographics. 2011;31(2):569-83.
Kobayashi H, Yamada Y, Sado T, Sakata M, Yoshida S, Kawaguchi R, et al. A randomized study of screening for ovarian cancer: a multicenter study in Japan. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2008;18(3):414-20.
Markman M, Federico M, Liu PY, Hannigan E, Alberts D. Significance of early changes in the serum CA-125 antigen level on overall survival in advanced ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2006;103(1):195-8.
Bese T, Demirkiran FU, Arvas M, Oz AU, Kosebay D, Erkun E. What should be the cut‐off level of serum CA125 to evaluate the disease status before second‐look laparotomy in epithelial ovarian carcinoma. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 1997;7(1):42-5.
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. BJOG. 1990;97(10):922-9.
Castellucci P, Perrone AM, Picchio M, Ghi T, Farsad M, Nanni C, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of 18F-FDG PET/CT in characterizing ovarian lesions and staging ovarian cancer: correlation with transvaginal ultrasonography, computed tomography, and histology. Nuclear medicine communications, 2007;28(8):589-95.
Moideen N, Hebbar SS, Rai L, Guruvare S, Adiga P. Comparison of CA-125, conventional ultrasound and CT imaging in diagnosis and staging of ovarian cancer correlated with surgico-pathological findings. Int J Reprod Contracept Obstet Gynecol. 2014;3(4):924-931.
Funston G, Hamilton W, Abel G, Crosbie EJ, Rous B, Walter FM. The diagnostic performance of CA125 for the detection of ovarian and non-ovarian cancer in primary care: A population-based cohort study. PLoS Med. 2020;17(10).
Ahmed M, Afroze N, Sabiha M. Morphological Pattern of Ovarian Tumour: Experience in a Tertiary Level Hospital. J Bangladesh Coll Physicians Surg. 2018;36(1):5-10.
Timmerman D, Testa AC, Bourne T, Ameye L, Jurkovic D, Van Holsbeke C, et al. Simple ultrasound-based rules for the diagnosis of ovarian cancer. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2008;31(6):681-90.
Bhimani D, Garasiya V, Raychaudhuri C. Role of USG and CT scan in evaluating ovarian lesions. IAIM. 2018;5(5):156-66.
Arora M, Thakker VD, Sindhwani G, Gogoi RK. Ovarian masses: hitting the oncological dart with ultrasound and CT-A comparative study in a remote northeast Indian town. Int J Anat Radiol Surg. 2017;6(2):68-74.
Hafeez S, Sufian S, Merchant Q, Jamil Y, Masroor I. Role of ultrasound in characterization of ovarian masses. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2013;14(1):603-6.
Anton C, Carvalho FM, Oliveira EI, Maciel GAR, Baracat EC, Carvalho JP. A comparison of CA125, HE4, risk ovarian malignancy algorithm (ROMA), and risk malignancy index (RMI) for the classification of ovarian masses. Clinics. 2012;67:437-41.
Verit FF, Pehlivan M. Transvaginal ultrasound and computed tomography combined with Ca-125 determinations in preoperative evaluation of ovarian masses in premenopausal women. Harran Univ Tip Fak Derg. 2007;4(2):50-4.
Mubarak F, Alam MS, Akhtar W, Hafeez S, Nizamuddin N. Role of multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) in patients with ovarian masses. Int J Womens Health. 2011;3:123-6.
Priya MHF, Kirubamani NH. Clinical correlation of ovarian mass with ultrasound findings and histopathology report. Int J Reprod Contracept Obstet Gynecol. 2017;6(12):5230-5.
