Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2020 Feb 16;10(2):106.
doi: 10.3390/diagnostics10020106.

Accuracy in Referrals to Gynecologic Oncologists Based on Clinical Presentation for Ovarian Mass

Affiliations

Accuracy in Referrals to Gynecologic Oncologists Based on Clinical Presentation for Ovarian Mass

Katherine Jane C Chua et al. Diagnostics (Basel). .

Abstract

Ovarian cancer is one of the most lethal gynecological cancers in women due to late diagnosis. Despite technological advancements, experienced physicians have high sensitivities and specificities in subjective assessments when combining ultrasound findings and clinical history in analyzing adnexal masses. This study aims to demonstrate general obstetricians and gynecologists' (OB/GYN) appropriateness in gynecologic oncologist referrals for malignant ovarian masses based on history and physical (H&P), imaging, and available tumor markers. Three board certified OB/GYNs were given 148 cases and determined whether or not they would refer them to a gynecologic oncologist. Results showed that OB/GYNs were 81-85% accurate in diagnosing patients with a benign or malignant disease. Among the malignant cases, reviewers had a high sensitivity ranging from 74-81% in appropriately referring a malignancy. In our study, OB/GYNs referred between 23-32% of ovarian masses to a gynecologic oncologist with only 9.5% of cases found to be malignant. Despite the high referral rates, generalists showed a high degree of sensitivity in accurately referring malignant diseases based solely on clinical experience and imaging studies, which could improve survival rates with early intervention by gynecologic oncologists.

Keywords: ovarian mass; referral gynecologic oncologists.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Yoshida A., Derchain S., Pitta D., De Angelo Andrade L., Sarian L. Comparing the Copenhagen Index (CPH-I) and Risk of Ovarian Malignancy Algorithm (ROMA): Two equivalent ways to differentiate malignant from benign ovarian tumors before surgery? Gynecol. Oncol. 2016;140:481–485. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2016.01.023. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Van Gorp T., Veldman J., Van Calster B., Cadron I., Leunen K., Amant F., Timmerman D., Vergote I. Subjective assessment by ultrasound is superior to the risk of malignancy index (RMI) or the risk of ovarian malignancy algorithm (ROMA) in discriminating benign from malignant adnexal masses. Eur. J. Cancer. 2012;48:1649–1656. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2011.12.003. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Froyman W., Landolfo C., De Cock B., Wynants L., Sladkevicius P., Testa A., Van Holsbeke C., Domali E., Fruscio R., Epstein E., et al. Risk of complications in patients with conservatively managed ovarian tumours (IOTA5): A 2-year interim analysis of a multicentre, prospective, cohort study. Lancet Oncol. 2019;20:448–458. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(18)30837-4. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Blyuss O., Burnell M., Ryan A., Gentry-Maharaj A., Mariño I., Kalsi J., Manchanda R., Timms J.F., Parmar M., Skates S.J., et al. Comparison of Longitudinal CA125 Algorithms as a First-Line Screen for Ovarian Cancer in the General Population. Clin. Cancer Res. 2018;24:4726–4733. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-18-0208. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Gostout B., Brewer M. Guidelines for Referral of the Patient with an Adnexal Mass. Clinical Obstetrics and Gynecology. Clin. Obstet. Gynecol. 2006;49:448–458. doi: 10.1097/00003081-200609000-00005. - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources