Comparison of ovarian crescent sign and risk of malignancy index for prediction of ovarian malignancy in adnexal masses
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18203/2320-1770.ijrcog20210298Keywords:
Ovarian crescent sign, Risk of malignancy index, Ovarian malignancy, Adnexal massAbstract
Background: Objective of the study was to evaluate ovarian crescent sign (OCS) as a sonographic parameter for prediction of ovarian cancer in adnexal masses suspicious of ovarian malignancy and to compare it with risk of malignancy index (RMI).
Methods: Presence of OCS and calculation of RMI was done for 50 cases of adnexal masses scheduled to undergo surgery taking histopathology as gold standard.
Results: 18% (9/50) of adnexal masses were malignant. OCS was absent in all malignant lesions, giving a sensitivity and negative predictive value of 100%. OCS was present in 33/41 of benign masses (specificity 80.4%). Relation of OCS to mass size<10 cm and menopausal status was significant (p<0.001). RMI≥200 could not diagnose malignancy in 4/9 cases (sensitivity 55.5%). RMI had specificity and negative predictive value of 95.1% and 90.7% respectively. Combining OCS and RMI had a lower specificity. Sequential application using OCS as first node and RMI as second node failed to diagnose 44.4% (4/9) cases as malignant.
Conclusions: OCS is cheaper, easy to perform and appears to be a better test than RMI to differentiate between benign and early-stage malignant ovarian tumors. It can be used for triaging patient for referral.
References
Morgante G, la Marca A, Ditto A, De Leo V. Comparison of two malignancy risk indices based on serum CA125, ultrasound score and menopausal status in the diagnosis of ovarian masses. J Obstet Gynaecol 1999;106:524-7.
Van Nagell JR Jr, Gershenson DM. Ovarian cancer: Etiology, Screening, and Surgery. In: Te Linde’s Operative Gynaecology, 9th ed. Rock JA, Jones HW, eds. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins: Philadelphia; 2003:1487-522.
Manjunath AP, Pratapkumar, Sujatha K, Vani R. Comparison of three risk of malignancy indices in evaluation of pelvic masses. Gynecol Oncol 2001;81:225-9.
Suh-Burgmann E. Long-term outcomes following conservative surgery for borderline tumor of the ovary: a large population-based study. Gynecol Oncol. 2006;103:841-7.
Weiner Z, Thaler I, Beck D, Rottem S, Deutsch M, Brandes JM. Differentiating malignant from benign ovarian tumors with transvaginal color flow imaging. Obstet Gynecol. 1992;79:159-62.
Jacobs I, Oram D, Fairbanks J, Turner J, Frost C, Grudzinskas JG. A risk of malignancy index incorporating CA125, ultrasound and menopausal status for the accurate preoperative diagnosis of ovarian cancer. Br J Obstet Gynecol. 1990;97:922-9.
Hillaby K, Aslam N, Salim R, Lawrence A, Raju KS, Jurkovic D. The value of detection of normal ovarian tissue (the ‘ovarian crescent sign’) in the differential diagnosis of adnexal masses. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2004;23:63-7.
Tingulstad S, Hagon B, Skjeldestad FE, Onsrud M, Kiserud T, Halvorsen T, Nustad K. Evaluation of a risk of malignancy index based on serum CA125, ultrasound findings and menopausal status in the pre-operative diagnosis of pelvic masses. Br J Obstet Gynecol. 1996;103:826-31.
Yazbek J, Aslam N, Tailor A, Hillaby K, Raju KS, Jurkovic D. A comparative study of the risk of malignancy index and the ovarian crescent sign for the diagnosis of invasive ovarian cancer. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2006;28:320-4.
Kushtagi P, Kulkarni KK. Significance of the 'ovarian crescent sign' in the evaluation of adnexal masses. Singapore Med J. 2008;49(12):1017-20.
Van Holsbeke C, Van Belle V, Leone FP, Guerriero S, Paladini D, Melis GB, Greggi S, Fischerova D, De Jonge E, Neven P, Bourne T, Valentin L, Van Huffel S, Timmerman D. Prospective external validation of the 'ovarian crescent sign' as a single ultrasound parameter to distinguish between benign and malignant adnexal pathology. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2010;36(1):81-7.
