|
|
|
| The value of GI-RADS ultrasonographic stratification combined with serum CA-125 in diagnosis of adnexal masses |
| XU Ai-ling, NIE Fang, WANG Juan-juan, LV Wen-hao, ZHANG Xue-yun |
| Lanzhou University Second Hospital, Lanzhou 730030, China |
|
|
|
|
Abstract Objective: To analyze the value of gynecologic imaging reporting and data system(GI-RADS) ultrasonographic stratification combined with serum CA-125 in diagnosing adnexal masses. Methods: Ultrasound manifestations of 159 adnexal masses confirmed by pathology were retrospectively analyzed according to 6 ultrasonic features: wall thickness, separation, ascites, papillary bulge, solid component, and internal blood flow. Then the adnexal masses were graded with GI-RADS ultrasonographic stratification, using the serum CA-125 data to calibrate the GI-RADS ultrasonographic stratification. Results: Of the 6 ultrasound signs, the Youden index and accuracy of the internal blood flow were the highest, 63.1% and 85.5% respectively. Those of the wall thickness were the minimum, 16.8% and 72.3% respectively. Compared to GI-RADS ultrasonographic stratification, GI-RADS ultrasonographic stratification combined with serum CA-125 showed higher Youden index(79.4%, 76.4%) and lower accuracy(91.2%, 93.1%). Conclusions: Of the 6 ultrasound signs, diagnostic efficiency of internal blood flow is the highest and that of wall thickness is the lowest in diagnosing adnexal malignancies. Both GI-RADS ultrasonographic stratification and GI-RADS ultrasonographic stratification combined with serum CA-125 in diagnosis of adnexal malignancies have high diagnostic value and no significant difference in diagnostic efficiency.
|
|
Received: 22 January 2018
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [1]Abramowicz JS, Timmerman D. Ovarian mass-differentiating benign from malignant: the value of the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis ultrasound rules[J]. Am J Obstet Gynecol, 2017, 217(6): 652-660.
[2]Amor F, Vaccaro H, Alcázar JL, et al. Gynecologic imaging reporting and data system: a new proposal for classifying adnexal masses on the basis of sonographic findings[J]. J Ultrasound Med, 2009, 28(3): 285-291.
[3]Zhang T, Li F, Liu J, et al. Diagnostic performance of the Gynecology Imaging Reporting and Data System for malignant adnexal masses[J]. Int J Gynaecol Obstet, 2017, 137(3): 325-331.
[4]陈秋月，吕国荣. GI-RADS分类在妇科附件肿块诊断中的应用[J]. 中国超声医学杂志，2013，29（6）：527-530.
[5]Amor F, Alcázar JL, Vaccaro H, et al. GI-RADS reporting system for ultrasound evaluation of adnexal masses in clinical practice: a prospective multicenter study[J]. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol, 2011, 38(4): 450-455.
[6]Alcazar JL, Pascual MA, Graupera B, et al. External validation of IOTA simple descriptors and simple rules for classifying adnexal masses[J]. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol, 2016, 48(3): 397-402.
[7]卢晓晔，林芳芳，方会娟，等． CA125在子宫内膜样腺癌组织中的表达特征及意义[J]． 广东医学，2010，31（1）：85-86．
[8]吴玉梅，张为远. 卵巢癌[M]. 北京：人民卫生出版社，2011：73-90.
[9]Karlan BY, Thorpe J, Watabayashi K, et al. Use of CA125 and HE4 serum markers to predict ovarian cancer in elevated-risk women[J]. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev, 2014, 23(7): 1383-1393.
[10]张国福，尚鸣异，张鹤，等. 卵巢肿瘤影像学[M]. 天津：天津科技翻译出版有限公司，2017：109-116.
[11]池秀玲，余彩茶，张品南，等. 卵巢恶性肿瘤的超声声像图特征与病理特点[J]. 中国临床医学影像杂志，2014，25（9）：642-644.
[12]李载红，景香香. 超声造影在卵巢肿瘤临床检测中的应用[J]. 中国临床医学影像杂志，2016，27（1）：62-65.
[13]戴琴. 卵巢恶性肿瘤的超声评价及研究进展[J]. 肿瘤影像学，2016，25（1）：1-5. |
|
|
|
