DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.18203/2320-1770.ijrcog20214460

A prospective study of clinical and diagnostic methods of ovarian tumors admitted in a tertiary care hospital and its correlation with histopathology

Silika Madria, Vineeta Ghanghoriya, Kavita N. Singh, Manisha Lokwani, Ranu Tiwari

Abstract


Background: Aim of the study was to study demographic profile and diagnostic modalities of ovarian tumors and their correlation with histopathological report (HPR).

Methods: Prospective observational study conducted in NSCB medical college, Jabalpur from February 2019 to July 2020 on subjects with ultrasonographically diagnosed ovarian tumors. Relevant history obtained, gynecologic examination, investigations recorded. Subjects followed up to collection of HPR and correlation with histopathology done.

Results: Out of 120 cases of ovarian tumors, 39.16% were malignant and 60.83% were benign ovarian tumors. Out of 80 premenopausal females, majority (78.75%) had benign ovarian masses. Amongst 40 postmenopausal females, 75% of ovarian masses were malignant. CA125 had sensitivity 76.59%, specificity 76.71% and accuracy 76.66% in diagnosing ovarian malignancy. Amongst 4 RMI scores, RMI 1 has the highest sensitivity and specificity 85.10%, 86.30% respectively. Sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of ultrasound score was 65.21%, 86.30% and 77.5% respectively. Sensitivity and specificity of clinical diagnosis was 83% and 95.89% respectively and ROC analysis showed clinical diagnosis can accurately predict benign and malignant ovarian tumors in 89% cases.

Conclusions: RMI 1 score has the highest sensitivity and specificity in our study. When all 4 methods of diagnosis i.e., RMI Score, ultrasound score, CA125 and clinical diagnosis were compared, clinical diagnosis has highest prediction of malignancy.


Keywords


Ovarian cancer, CA 125, Ultrasound score, RMI score

Full Text:

PDF

References


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.

Singhal S, Rajoria L. Risk of malignancy index 4 in preoperative evaluation of patients with ovarian tumours. Int J Reprod Contrac Obstetr Gynecol. 2018;7(6):2467-71.

Jemal A, Murray T, Samuels A, Ghafoor A, Ward E, Thun MJ. Cancer statistics, 2003. CA Cancer J Clin 2003;53:5-26.

Murthy NS, Shalini S, Suman G, Pruthvish S, Mathew A. Changing trends in incidence of ovarian cancer, The Indian scenario. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2009;10:1025-30.

Chen VW, Ruiz B, Killeen JL, Coté TR, Wu XC, Correa CN. Pathology and classification of ovarian tumors. Cancer. 2003;97(10)2631-42.

Jelovac D, Armstrong DK. Recent progress in the diagnosis and treatment of ovarian cancer. CA Cancer J Clin. 2011;61(3):183-203.

Cho KR, Shih IM. Ovarian cancer. Annu Rev Pathol. 2009;4:287-313.

Scholler N, Urban N. CA125 in ovarian cancer. Biomark Med. 2007;1(4):513-23.

Mondal SK, Banyopadhyay R, Nag DR, Roychowdhury S, Mondal PK, Sinha SK. Histologic pattern, bilaterality and clinical evaluation of 957 ovarian neoplasms: A 10-year study in a tertiary hospital of eastern India. J Can Res Ther. 2011;7:433-7.

Radhamani S, Akhila MV. Evaluation of adnexal masses-correlation of clinical, sonological and histopathological findings in adnexal masses. Inter J Scientific Study. 2017;4(11):88-92.

Ganga P, Suneeta KP, Dhaded AV, Yenni VV. Ovarian tumours. JIMA. 2002:100:07.

Yogambal M, Arunalatha P, Chandramouleeswari K, Palaniappan V. Ovarian tumours-incidence and distribution in a tertiary referral center in south India. IOSR-JDMS. 2014;13(2):74-80

Bhagde AD, Jani SK, Patel MS, Shah SR. An analytical study of 50 women presenting with an adnexal mass. Inter J Reprod Contracept Obstetr Gynecol. 2016;6(1):262-5.

Al-Shukri M, Mathew M, Al-Ghafri W, Al-Kalbani M, Al-Kharusi L, Gowri V. A clinicopathological study of women with adnexal masses presenting with acute symptoms. Ann Med Health Sci Res. 2014;4:286-8.

Jindal D. Epidemiology of epithelial ovarian cancer: a tertiary hospital-based study in Goa, India. Int J Reprod Contracept Obstet Gynecol. 2017;6(6):2541-6.

Karimi-Zarchi M, Mojaver SP, Teimoori S. Diagnostic Value of the Risk of Malignancy Index (RMI) for Detection of Pelvic Malignancies Compared with Pathology. Electron Physician. 2015;7(7):1505-10.

Mehboob S, Ghafoor F, Yunus S, Sajjad R. Role of CA-125 as an ovarian tumor marker. Pak J Med Res. 2009;48(3):23-5.

Yelikar KA, Deshpande SS, Nanaware SS, Pagare SB. Evaluation of the validity of risk malignancy index in clinically diagnosed ovarian masses and to compare it with the validity of individual constituent parameter of risk malignancy index. Int J Reprod Contracept Obstet Gynecol. 2016;5(2):460-4.

Agrawal T, Ganguly I. To study the diagnostic role of various risks of malignancy indices (RMI 1, 2, 3, 4) in the pre-operative evaluation of adnexal masses and to compare the four RMI with each other in terms of various statistical parameters. 2015.

Kumari S. Risk of malignancy index for pre-operative diagnosis of ovarian cancer. Int J Clin Obstetr Gynaecol. 2019;3(1):128-30.

Maheshwari A. Accuracy of intraoperative frozen section in the diagnosis of ovarian neoplasms: experience at a tertiary oncology. World J surgical oncol. 2006;4(1):12.

Das MJ. Adnexal mass: a clinicopathological study at a tertiary care centre in Assam, India. Int J Reproduct Contrac Obstetr Gynecol. 2008;4:1458.