The Serum CA-125 Concentration Data Assists in Evaluating CT Imaging Information when Used to Differentiate Borderline Ovarian Tumor from Malignant Epithelial Ovarian Tumors

Overview

Journal Korean J Radiol

Specialty Radiology

Date 2011 Aug 20

PMID 21852906

Citations 5

Authors

Ji-Eun Shin

Hyuck Jae Choi

Mi-Hyun Kim

Kyoung-Sik Cho

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Objective: We wanted to evaluate the diagnostic value of serum CA-125 concentration, when used in combination with the preoperative contrast-enhanced CT results, to differentiate borderline ovarian tumors (BOTs) from stage I malignant epithelial ovarian tumors (MEOTs).

Materials And Methods: Ninety-eight masses (46 BOTs and 52 stage I MEOTs) from 87 consecutive patients (49 with BOTs and 38 with stage I MEOTs) who had undergone preoperative contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT) and surgical staging were evaluated retrospectively and independently by two radiologists. The preoperative serum CA-125 concentration was measured in all patients. The utility of analyzing serum CA-125 concentration in combination with the CT results was evaluated by receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis.

Results: An irregular tumor surface and lymphadenopathy were predictive of a MEOT. ROC analysis showed that the combination of CT data and the serum CA-125 level resulted in a higher diagnostic performance than did using the CT alone for differentiating BOTs from MEOTs. The areas under the curves (AUCs) without and with the use of the serum CA-125 level data were 0.67 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.57-0.77) and 0.78 (95% CI: 0.68-0.85), respectively, for reader 1 (p = 0.029) and 0.71 (95% CI: 0.61-0.80) and 0.81 (95% CI: 0.72-0.89), respectively, for reader 2 (p = 0.009).

Conclusion: The serum CA-125 concentration is of additional diagnostic value when used in conjunction with the CT imaging results for differentiating BOTs from MEOTs.

Citing Articles

Radiomics nomogram for preoperative differentiation of early-stage serous borderline ovarian tumors and serous malignant ovarian tumors.

Yu X, Zou Y, Wang L, Yang H, Jiao J, Yu H Front Oncol. 2024; 13:1269589.

PMID: 38288103 PMC: 10822955. DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2023.1269589.

Computed Tomography Indicators for Differentiating Stage 1 Borderline Ovarian Tumors from Stage I Malignant Epithelial Ovarian Tumors.

Moon M, Park H, Kim Y, Yu M, Park S, Jung S Diagnostics (Basel). 2023; 13(3).

PMID: 36766584 PMC: 9914279. DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics13030480.

Combination of serum CA19-9 and CA125 levels and contrast-enhanced ultrasound parametric data facilitates to differentiate ovarian serous carcinoma from ovarian malignant epithelial cancer.

Zhang W, Wang L, Xin Z Medicine (Baltimore). 2018; 97(16):e0358.

PMID: 29668586 PMC: 5916679. DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000010358.

Does the Reporting Quality of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies, as Defined by STARD 2015, Affect Citation?.

Choi Y, Chung M, Koo H, Park J, Yoon H, Park S Korean J Radiol. 2016; 17(5):706-14.

PMID: 27587959 PMC: 5007397. DOI: 10.3348/kjr.2016.17.5.706.

Genital Schistosomiasis: A Report on Two Cases of Ovarian Carcinomas Containing Viable Eggs of Schistosoma mansoni.

Amorim A, Alves Barbosa Pagio F, Ferreira R, Chambo Filho A Case Rep Obstet Gynecol. 2015; 2014:508718.

PMID: 25587473 PMC: 4283256. DOI: 10.1155/2014/508718.

References

Jung D, Kim S, Kim S . MR imaging findings of ovarian cystadenofibroma and cystadenocarcinofibroma: clues for the differential diagnosis. Korean J Radiol. 2006; 7(3):199-204. PMC: 2667602. DOI: 10.3348/kjr.2006.7.3.199. View

Cadron I, Leunen K, Van Gorp T, Amant F, Neven P, Vergote I . Management of borderline ovarian neoplasms. J Clin Oncol. 2007; 25(20):2928-37. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2007.10.8076. View

Buy J, Ghossain M, Sciot C, Bazot M, Guinet C, Prevot S . Epithelial tumors of the ovary: CT findings and correlation with US. Radiology. 1991; 178(3):811-8. DOI: 10.1148/radiology.178.3.1994423. View

Paramasivam S, Tripcony L, Crandon A, Quinn M, Hammond I, Marsden D . Prognostic importance of preoperative CA-125 in International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stage I epithelial ovarian cancer: an Australian multicenter study. J Clin Oncol. 2005; 23(25):5938-42. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2005.08.151. View

Van Calster B, Timmerman D, Bourne T, Testa A, Van Holsbeke C, Domali E . Discrimination between benign and malignant adnexal masses by specialist ultrasound examination versus serum CA-125. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2007; 99(22):1706-14. DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djm199. View

Choi H, Lee J, Kang S, Seo S, Choi J, Lee S . Contrast-enhanced CT for differentiation of ovarian metastasis from gastrointestinal tract cancer: stomach cancer versus colon cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2006; 187(3):741-5. DOI: 10.2214/AJR.05.0944. View

Rieber A, Nussle K, Stohr I, Grab D, Fenchel S, Kreienberg R . Preoperative diagnosis of ovarian tumors with MR imaging: comparison with transvaginal sonography, positron emission tomography, and histologic findings. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2001; 177(1):123-9. DOI: 10.2214/ajr.177.1.1770123. View

deSouza N, ONeill R, McIndoe G, Dina R, Patrick Soutter W . Borderline tumors of the ovary: CT and MRI features and tumor markers in differentiation from stage I disease. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2005; 184(3):999-1003. DOI: 10.2214/ajr.184.3.01840999. View

Jones M . Borderline ovarian tumors: current concepts for prognostic factors and clinical management. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2006; 49(3):517-25. DOI: 10.1097/00003081-200609000-00011. View

10.

Pignata S, Cannella L, Leopardo D, Pisano C, Bruni G, Facchini G . Chemotherapy in epithelial ovarian cancer. Cancer Lett. 2011; 303(2):73-83. DOI: 10.1016/j.canlet.2011.01.026. View

11.

Tinelli R, Tinelli A, Tinelli F, Cicinelli E, Malvasi A . Conservative surgery for borderline ovarian tumors: a review. Gynecol Oncol. 2005; 100(1):185-91. DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2005.09.021. View

12.

Bell D, Longacre T, Prat J, Kohn E, Soslow R, Ellenson L . Serous borderline (low malignant potential, atypical proliferative) ovarian tumors: workshop perspectives. Hum Pathol. 2004; 35(8):934-48. DOI: 10.1016/j.humpath.2004.03.005. View

13.

Zhang J, Mironov S, Hricak H, Ishill N, Moskowitz C, Soslow R . Characterization of adnexal masses using feature analysis at contrast-enhanced helical computed tomography. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2008; 32(4):533-40. DOI: 10.1097/RCT.0b013e3181568890. View

14.

Grab D, Flock F, Stohr I, Nussle K, Rieber A, Fenchel S . Classification of asymptomatic adnexal masses by ultrasound, magnetic resonance imaging, and positron emission tomography. Gynecol Oncol. 2000; 77(3):454-9. DOI: 10.1006/gyno.2000.5768. View

15.

Brown D, Zou K, Tempany C, Frates M, Silverman S, McNeil B . Primary versus secondary ovarian malignancy: imaging findings of adnexal masses in the Radiology Diagnostic Oncology Group Study. Radiology. 2001; 219(1):213-8. DOI: 10.1148/radiology.219.1.r01ap28213. View

16.

Dobson M, Carrington B, Radford J, Buckley C, Crowther D . The role of computed tomography in the management of ovarian tumours of borderline malignancy. Clin Radiol. 1997; 52(4):280-3. DOI: 10.1016/s0009-9260(97)80054-2. View

17.

Jang Y, Kim J, Park S, Cho K . Variable CT findings of epithelial origin ovarian carcinoma according to the degree of histologic differentiation. Korean J Radiol. 2007; 8(2):120-6. PMC: 2626777. DOI: 10.3348/kjr.2007.8.2.120. View

18.

Jacobs I, Skates S, Davies A, Woolas R, Jeyerajah A, Weidemann P . Risk of diagnosis of ovarian cancer after raised serum CA 125 concentration: a prospective cohort study. BMJ. 1996; 313(7069):1355-8. PMC: 2352927. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.313.7069.1355. View