4.2 Review

Scoring systems for the evaluation of adnexal masses nature: current knowledge and clinical applications

期刊

JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNAECOLOGY
卷 41, 期 3, 页码 340-347

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.1080/01443615.2020.1732892

关键词

Adnexal mass; RMI; CPH-I; OVA1; IOTA; ovarian cancer

资金

  1. Nazarbayev University School of Medicine

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Adnexal masses are common in women, with various algorithms and scoring systems developed for clinical assessment to differentiate between benign and malignant ovarian tumors, which can be complex. This review aims to provide a comprehensive overview of the available evidence regarding different scoring systems for pelvic masses in female patients.
Adnexal masses are a common finding in women, with 20% of them developing at least one pelvic mass during their lifetime. There are more than 30 different subtypes of adnexal tumours, with multiple different subcategories, and the correct characterisation of the pelvic masses is of paramount importance to guide the correct management. On that basis, different algorithms and scoring systems have been developed to guide the clinical assessment. The first scoring system implemented into the clinical practice was the Risk of Malignancy Index, which combines ultrasound evaluation, menopausal status, and serum CA-125 levels. Today, current guidelines regarding female patients with adnexal masses include the application of International Ovarian Tumours Analysis simple rules, logistic regression model 1 (LR1) and LR2, OVERA, cancer ovarii non-invasive assessment of treating strategy, and assessment of Different Neoplasias in the adnexa. In this scenario, the choice of the scoring system for the discrimination between benign and malignant ovarian tumours can be complex when approaching patients with adnexal masses. This review aims to summarise the available evidence regarding the different scoring systems to provide a complete overview of the topic.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据