NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.

Myers ER, Bastian LA, Havrilesky LJ, et al. Management of Adnexal Mass. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2006 Feb. (Evidence Reports/Technology Assessments, No. 130.)

  • This publication is provided for historical reference only and the information may be out of date.

This publication is provided for historical reference only and the information may be out of date.

Cover of Management of Adnexal Mass

Management of Adnexal Mass.

Show details

Appendix D: Evidence Tables

Evidence Table 1. Question 1: What is the prevalence of various tumor types among women with an adnexal mass, stratified by cancer status (malignant vs. benign), age, menopausal status, and size of tumor?

Evidence Table 2. Question 2: What are the sensitivity, specificity, and reliability of the bimanual pelvic examination?

Evidence Table 3. Question 3: Among women with a palpable adnexal mass on exam or a mass identified by ultrasound/imaging, what is the sensitivity/specificity of various evaluation modalities including ultrasound (transvaginal ultrasound, transabdominal ultrasound, color Doppler, 2D vs. 3D ultrasound), CT scan, MRI scan, and CA-125 levels for distinguishing benign from malignant masses?

Evidence Table 4. Question 4: What is the accuracy of explicit scoring systems which incorporate various combinations of imaging findings, patient risk factors, and/or CA-125 levels for detecting malignancy? Have these scoring systems been applied to a population of women before laparoscopy or laparotomy?

Evidence Table 5. Question 5: Among women with suspected benign masses on initial investigation, what are the sensitivity and specificity of monitoring with periodic CA-125 and/or interval ultrasound examinations for detecting malignant masses? How does the interval of testing/definition of change affect sensitivityand predictive value?

Evidence Table 6. Question 6: Among women with adnexal masses, what are the morbidity and mortality from diagnostic surgery (laparoscopy or laparotomy)? At what point does the risk of surgery outweigh the risk of detecting malignancy?

Evidence Table 7. Question 7: What are the estimated trade-offs resulting from various strategies for evaluation of the adnexal mass?

Abbreviations used in the Evidence Tables

2DTwo-dimensional
3DThree-dimensional
AFPAlpha-fetoprotein
AHRQAgency for Healthcare Research and Quality
AUCArea under the curve
BMEBimanual examination
BMIBody mass index
CA-19-9Cancer antigen 19-9
CA-72–4Cancer antigen 72–4
CA-125Cancer antigen 125
CEACarcinoembryonic antigen
CIConfidence interval
CPPChronic pelvic pain
CTComputed tomography
F-FDG18-Fluorodeoxyglucose
FNAFine needle aspiration
FSHFollicle-stimulating hormone
GIGastrointestinal
hCGHuman chorionic gonadotropin
ICD-9 International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision
LDHLactate dehydrogenase
LMPLow malignant potential
MRIMagnetic resonance imaging
NISNationwide Inpatient Sample
NANot applicable
NPVNegative predictive value
NRNot reported
OROdds ratio
PEPelvic examination
PETPositron emission tomography
PIPulsatility index
PIDPelvic inflammatory disease
PPSPapillary projection score
PPVPositive predictive value
PSVPeak systolic velocity
RIResistance index
RMIRisk of Malignancy Index
ROCReceiver operating characteristic
SDStandard deviation
SeSensitivity
SEMStandard error of the mean
SpSpecificity
TAG-72Tumor-associated glycoprotein 72
TAMXVTime-averaged maximum velocity
ATITumor-associated trypsin inhibitor
TVUSTransvaginal ultrasound
USUltrasound
UTIUrinary tract infection
PubReader format: click here to try

Views

  • PubReader
  • Print View
  • Cite this Page

Recent Activity

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

See more...