Characteristics in early diagnosis of ovarian masses
DOI: 10.32364/2618-8430-2023-6-2-105-111
A.V. Smirnova1,2, A.I. Malyshkina1,2, E.P. Khrushkova2
1Ivanovo State Medical Academy, Ivanovo, Russian Federation
2V.N. Gorodkov Ivanovo Research Institute of Motherhood and Childhood, Ivanovo, Russian Federation
Aim: to identify clinical and anamnestic risk factors for ovarian masses (OM), as well as to clarify the significance of various diagnostic criteria in the early diagnosis of ovarian cancer (OC).
Patients and Methods: a retrospective analysis of 50 cases of patients with OM was conducted. The following groups were formed: the main group (50 patients with OM) and the control group — practically healthy female subjects (32 patients). Retrospectively, depending on the results concerning histology of the removed surgical material, the main group was divided into 2 subgroups: subgroup 1 — 37 patients with benign OM, subgroup 2 — 13 patients with borderline and malignant OM. The patterns of the anamnesis, the level of the Ca-125 tumor marker, the values of the Risk of Malignancy Index (RMI), and the tumor histology structure were assessed.
Results: during the study, it was found that in patients with OM, diseases of the gastrointestinal tract (GIT), urinary system (24%), pelvic inflammatory disease (PID), as well as menstrual disorders of various types and uterine fibroids (p<0.05) are more common. The incidence of gynecologic cancer in the family history is also significantly higher in patients with OM vs. the control group (36% and 3%, respectively, p<0.05). Elevated Ca-125 values were noted both in the group with benign ovarian masses and in the group with borderline and malignant ovarian tumors.it has been established that the main risk factors for the OC development are diseases of GIT (Odds Ratio (OR) 2,09) and urinary system (OR 1,53), genetic predisposition to cancer of the reproductive organs (OR 1,86), menstrual disorder (OR 1,86), uterine fibroids (OR 1,74) and a history of PID (OR 1,83).
Conclusion: despite a large number of studies devoted to the problem of OC early diagnosis, there is still no reliable criterion with high sensitivity and specificity. Female patients with postmenopause and adverse ultrasound criteria should have high oncological alarm of doctors, even with low values of the Ca-125 oncological marker.
Keywords: ovarian tumors, neoplasms, ovarian cancer, risk factors, Ca-125, malignancy index RMI.
For citation: Smirnova A.V., Malyshkina A.I., Khrushkova E.P. Characteristics in early diagnosis of ovarian masses. Russian Journal of Woman and Child Health. 2023;6(2):105–111 (in Russ.). DOI: 10.32364/2618-8430-2023-6-2-105-111.
About the authors:
Anastasia V. Smirnova — C. Sc. (Med.), associate professor of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Medical Genetics, Ivanovo State Medical Academy; 8, Sheremetevskiy pass., Ivanovo, 153012, Russian Federation; obstetrician-gynecologist of Division No. 1 of the Clinical Hospital, V.N. Gorodkov Ivanovo Research Institute of Maternity and Childhood; 20, Pobedy str., Ivanovo, 153045, Russian Federation; ORCID iD 0000-0002-6811-6830.
Anna I. Malyshkina — Dr. Sc. (Med.), Professor, Head of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Medical Genetics, Ivanovo State Medical Academy; 8, Sheremetevskiy pass., Ivanovo, 153012, Russian Federation; Director of V.N. Gorodkov Ivanovo Research Institute of Maternity and Childhood; 20, Pobedy str., Ivanovo, 153045, Russian Federation; ORCID iD 0000-0002-1145-0563.
Ekaterina P. Khrushkova — resident of the V.N. Gorodkov Ivanovo Research Institute of Motherhood and Childhood; 20, Pobedy str., Ivanovo, 351609, Russian Federation.
Contact information: Anastasia V. Smirnova, e-mail: anguseva@yandex.ru.
Financial Disclosure: no authors have a financial or property interest in any material or method mentioned.
There is no conflict of interests.
Received 21.10.2022.
Revised 16.11.2022.
Accepted 09.12.2022.
2. Katz V.L., Lentz G.M., Lobo R.A. Benign gynecologic lesions: vulva, vagina, cervix, uterus, oviduct, ovary. In: Comprehensive gynecology. Philadelphia: Mosby; 2007:419–471.
3. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. ACOG Practice Bulletin. Management of adnexal masses. Obstet Gynecol. 2007;110(1):201–14. DOI: 10.1097/01.AOG.0000263913.92942.40.
4. Anton C., Carvalho F.M., Oliveira E.I. et al. A comparison of CA125, HE4, risk ovarian malignancy algorithm (ROMA), and risk malignancy index (RMI) for the classification of ovarian masses. Clinics (Sao Paulo). 2012;67(5):437–441. DOI: 10.6061/clinics/2012(05)06.
5. Jacobs I., Oram D., Fairbanks J. et al. A risk of malignancy index incorporating CA 125, ultrasound and menopausal status for the accurate preoperative diagnosis of ovarian cancer. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1990;97(10):922–929. DOI: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.1990.tb02448.x.
6. Nikoghosyan S.O., Zagashtokov A.Z., Levchenko N.E., Thakokhov M.M. Malignant ovarian tumors diagnostics difficulties. Opukholi zhenskoy reproduktivnoy systemy=Tumors of female reproductive system 2018;14(2):82–89 (in Russ.). DOI: 10.17650/1994-4098-2018-14-2-82-89.
7. Karelina O.B., Artymuk N.V., Fetisova T.I. Risk factors of ovarian cancer and possible preventive strategies. Fundamental and Clinical Medicine. 2018;3(3):91–96 (in Russ.). DOI: 10.23946/2500-0764-2018-3-3-91-96.
8. Nikogosyan S.O., Kuznetsov V.V., Zagashtokov A.Z. Emergency and planned surgical treatment of neoplasms of the uterine appendages. Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2017;6:10–16 (in Russ.). DOI: 10.18565/aig.2017.6.10-6.
9. Protasova A.E., Tsypurdeyeva A.A., Tsypurdeyeva N.D., Solntseva I.A. Principles of diagnosis of ovarian neoplasms — minimization of errors. Journal of Obstetrics and Women's Diseases. 2019;68(4):71–82 (in Russ.). DOI: 10.17816/JOWD68471-82.
10. Gasparov A.S., Zhordania K.I., Pajanidi Ju.G., Dubinskaya E.D. Oncogynecological Aspects оf Adnexal Masses. Vestn Ross Akad Med Nauk. 2013;68(8):9. (in Russ.). DOI: 10.15690/vramn.v68i8.716.
11. Jin J. Screening for Ovarian Cancer. JAMA. 2018;319(6):624. DOI: 10.1001 /jama.2017.22136.
12. Committee Opinion No. 716: The Role of the Obstetrician-Gynecologist in the Early Detection of Epithelial Ovarian Cancer in Women at Average Risk. Obstet Gynecol. 2017;130(3):e146–e149. DOI: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000002299.
13. Clark-Pearson D., Soper J. Gynecological Cancer Management: Identification, diagnosis and treatment. 1st ed. Wiley-Blackwell, 2011. DOI: 10.1002/9781444307542.
14. Abdulrahman G.O. Jr., McKnight L., Lutchman Singh K. The risk of malignancy index (RMI) in women with adnexal masses in Wales. Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol. 2014;53(3):376–81. DOI: 10.1016/j.tjog.2014.05.002.
15. Egunova M.A., Kutsenko I.G. Comparative characteristics of the available laboratory tests and their combinations used in differential diagnosis of ovarian neoplasms. Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproduction. 2017;11(4):5–13 (in Russ.). DOI: 10.17749/2313-7347.2017.11.4.005-013.
16. Taychinova S.F., Gantsev Sh.Kh., Mullagalina A.Z., Akberdina G.R. Ovarian Cysts in Menopausal Women (Literature Review). Creative Surgery and Oncology. 2019;9(2):144–150 (in Russ.). DOI: 10.24060/2076-3093-2019-9-2-144-150.
17. Kobaidze E.G., Shashueina J.A., Zaplatina V.S. Ovarian tumors in patients of late reproductive age and patients in postmenopause. Ural Medical Journal. 2020;05(188):122–128 (in Russ.). DOI: 10.25694/URMJ.2020.05.26.
18. Bandiera S., Aloisi A., Matarazzo M.G. et al. The Management of Ovarian Cysts in Postmenopausal Women. Giornale Italiano di Ostetricia e Ginecologia. 2008 (Electronic resource.) URL: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/287536509 (access date: 16.09.2022).
19. King M.C., Marks J.H., Mandell J.B. New York Breast Cancer Study G. Breast and ovarian cancer risks due to inherited mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2. Science. 2003;302(5645):643–646. DOI: 10.1126/science.1088759.
20. Chen S., Parmigiani G. Meta-analysis of BRCA1 and BRCA2 penetrance. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25(11):1329–1333. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2006.09.1066.
21. Timmerman D., Valent L., Bourne T.H. et al. Terms, definitions and measurements to describe the sonographic features of adnexal tumors: a consensus opinion from the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis (IOTA) group. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2000;16(5):500–505. DOI: 10.1046/j.1469-0705.2000.00287.x.
22. Azami S., Aoki Y., Iino M. et al. Useful aspects of diagnosis of imprint cytology in intraoperative consultation of ovarian tumors: comparison between imprint cytology and frozen sections. Diagn Cytopathol. 2018;46(1):28–34. DOI: 10.1002/dc.23844.
23. Bingcheng Guo, Wei Lian, Shuai Liu et al. Comparison of diagnostic values between CA125 combined with CA199 and ultrasound combined with CT in ovarian cancer. Oncol Lett. 2019;17(6):5523–5528. DOI: 10.3892/ol.2019.10264.
24. Andreotti R.F., Timmerman D., Benacerraf B.R. et al. Ovarian-Adnexal Reporting Lexicon for Ultrasound: A White Paper of the ACR Ovarian-Adnexal Reporting and Data System Committee. J Am Coll Radiol. 2018;15(10):1415–1429. DOI: 10.1016/j.jacr.2018.07.004.
25. Solopova A.E., Dudina A.N. О-RADS and ADNEX MR scoring system: standardization of assessment and modern approaches to stratification of ovarian malignancy risks. Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproduction. 2019;13(4):345–353. DOI: 10.17749/2313-7347.2019.13.4.345-353.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons «Attribution» 4.0 License.
