Transvaginal color Doppler ultrasonography and CA-125 in suspicious adnexal masses
Alcázar JL, Errasti T, Zornoza A, Mínguez JA, Galán MJ.
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Clínica Universitaria de Navarra, School of Medicine, University of Navarra, Pamplona, Spain.
To compare diagnostic performance of color Doppler ultrasound and CA-125 in suspicious adnexal masses on B-mode sonography.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Data on 94 patients (mean age: 47.4 years, range: 17-79 years. Fifty-two (55.3%) premenopausal and 42 (44.7%) postmenopausal women) managed in our institution because of a suspicious adnexal mass were reviewed. All patients were evaluated by transvaginal color Doppler ultrasonography (CD) and serum CA-125 level determination prior to surgery. Definitive histopathological diagnosis was obtained in each case.
Sonographic morphology evaluation was suspicious in all cases. CD was considered as suspicious when flow was detected and the lowest RI found was < or = 0.45. CA-125 cut-off was > or = 35 UI/ml. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) were calculated for each method and compared. ROC analysis was performed for RI and CA-125. Areas under curve (AUC) were calculated and compared.
Fifty-six (59.6%) tumors were found to be malignant and 38 (40.4%) benign. Sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV for CD were 87.5% (95% CIs: 75.3-94.4), 84.2% (95% CIs: 68.7-94), 89.1% (95% CIs: 77.7-95.9) and 82.1% (95% CIs: 66.5-92.5), respectively. Sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV for CA-125 were 83.9% (95% CIs: 71.7-92.4), 68.4% (95% CIs: 51.3-82.5), 79.7% (95% CIs: 66.2-89) and 74.3% (95% CIs: 56.7-87.5), respectively. Sensitivity, PPV and NPV were not statistically different. CD had higher specificity (P = 0.01). AUC curve for Doppler (0.75) was significantly higher than for CA-125 (0.61) (P = 0.0002).
Our results indicate that color Doppler ultrasound has a better diagnostic performance as compared with CA-125, being significantly more specific.
CITATION Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 1999 Sep;66(3):255-61