Accuracy in Referrals to Gynecologic Oncologists Based on Clinical Presentation for Ovarian Mass
- PMID: 32079078
- PMCID: PMC7168930
- DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics10020106
Accuracy in Referrals to Gynecologic Oncologists Based on Clinical Presentation for Ovarian Mass
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.
Conflict of interest statement
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Similar articles
-
Involvement of gynecologic oncologists in the treatment of patients with a suspicious ovarian mass.Obstet Gynecol. 2011 Oct;118(4):854-62. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e31822dabc6. Obstet Gynecol. 2011. PMID: 21934449
-
The clinical utility of an elevated-risk multivariate index assay score in ovarian cancer patients.Curr Med Res Opin. 2016 Jun;32(6):1161-5. doi: 10.1080/03007995.2016.1176014. Epub 2016 Apr 20. Curr Med Res Opin. 2016. PMID: 27052730
-
Validation of referral guidelines for women with pelvic masses.Obstet Gynecol. 2005 Jan;105(1):35-41. doi: 10.1097/01.AOG.0000149159.69560.ef. Obstet Gynecol. 2005. PMID: 15625139
-
First International Consensus Report on Adnexal Masses: Management Recommendations.J Ultrasound Med. 2017 May;36(5):849-863. doi: 10.1002/jum.14197. Epub 2017 Mar 7. J Ultrasound Med. 2017. PMID: 28266033
-
The Relevance of Gynecologic Oncologists to Provide High-Quality of Care to Women with Gynecological Cancer.Front Oncol. 2016 Jan 14;5:308. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2015.00308. eCollection 2015. Front Oncol. 2016. PMID: 26835417 Free PMC article. Review.
Cited by
-
A multidisciplinary approach remains the best strategy to improve and strengthen the management of ovarian cancer (Review).Int J Oncol. 2021 Jul;59(1):53. doi: 10.3892/ijo.2021.5233. Epub 2021 Jun 16. Int J Oncol. 2021. PMID: 34132354 Free PMC article. Review.
-
MicroRNA‑193a‑5p exerts a tumor suppressive role in epithelial ovarian cancer by modulating RBBP6.Mol Med Rep. 2021 Aug;24(2):582. doi: 10.3892/mmr.2021.12221. Epub 2021 Jun 16. Mol Med Rep. 2021. PMID: 34132380 Free PMC article.
-
Multi-modality deep learning model reaches high prediction accuracy in the diagnosis of ovarian cancer.iScience. 2024 Mar 4;27(4):109403. doi: 10.1016/j.isci.2024.109403. eCollection 2024 Apr 19. iScience. 2024. PMID: 38523785 Free PMC article.
References
-
- 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
-
- 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
-
- 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
-
- 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
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Miscellaneous