4.3 Article

The Diagnostic Value of Transvaginal Sonograph (TVS), Color Doppler, and Serum Tumor Marker CA125, CEA, and AFP in Ovarian Cancer

期刊

CELL BIOCHEMISTRY AND BIOPHYSICS
卷 72, 期 2, 页码 353-357

出版社

HUMANA PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1007/s12013-014-0463-x

关键词

TPS; Color Doppler; Tumor marker; Ovarian cancer

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The purpose of this study is to investigate the diagnostic value of transvaginal sonograph (TVS), color Doppler, and serum tumor marker CA125, CEA, and AFP in ovarian cancer. From June, 2011 to May, 2013, 102 cases with adnexal mass were recruited in this study (32 cases of malignant ovarian cancer and 70 cases of benign ovarian tumor according to pathological diagnosis). TVS, color Doppler, and serum tumor markers were used for tumor diagnosis. The sensitivity, specifity, positive prediction, negative prediction, and Youden's index were analyzed. Of the 102 patients, 32 were diagnosed with malignant ovarian cancer and 70 were diagnosed with benign ovarian tumor according to pathological diagnosis. Based on TVS results, 37 cases were malignant while 65 cases were benign. Based on color Doppler results, 34 cases were malignant while 68 cases were benign. Based on TVS and color Doppler results, 35 cases were malignant while 65 were benign. Based on CA125 test results, 34 cases were malignant while 68 cases were benign. Based on CEA test results, 8 cases were malignant and 94 cases were benign. Bases on AFP test results, 9 cases were malignant while 93 cases were benign. Based on the results of combination tumor marker test, 38 cases were malignant while 64 cases were benign. The combination of TVS, color Doppler, and tumor marker test showed optimal diagnostic value with a sensitivity of 90.63 %, specificity of 97.14 %, positive prediction of 93.94 %, negative prediction of 98.55 %, and Youden's index of 94.02 %. The combination of TVS, color Doppler, and tumor marker test is of great diagnostic value, which should be widely used in clinical practice.

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

4.3
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