Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Open Medicine

formerly Central European Journal of Medicine

Editor-in-Chief: Darzynkiewicz, Zbigniew


IMPACT FACTOR 2018: 1.221

CiteScore 2018: 1.01

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 0.329
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 0.479

ICV 2017: 152.94

Open Access
Online
ISSN
2391-5463
See all formats and pricing
More options …
Volume 9, Issue 2

Issues

Volume 10 (2015)

Diagnostic value of serum tumor markers evaluation for adnexal masses

Milan Terzic
  • Clinic of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Clinical Center of Serbia, Dr Koste Todorovica 26, 11000, Belgrade, Serbia
  • School of Medicine, University of Belgrade, Dr Subotica 8, 11000, Belgrade, Serbia
  • Email
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ Jelena Dotlic / Ivana Likic
  • Clinic of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Clinical Center of Serbia, Dr Koste Todorovica 26, 11000, Belgrade, Serbia
  • School of Medicine, University of Belgrade, Dr Subotica 8, 11000, Belgrade, Serbia
  • Email
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ Branka Nikolic
  • School of Medicine, University of Belgrade, Dr Subotica 8, 11000, Belgrade, Serbia
  • Clinic of Obstetrics and Gynecology „Narodni Front“, Kraljice Marije 62, 11000, Belgrade, Serbia
  • Email
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ Natasa Brndusic / Igor Pilic / Jovan Bila
  • Clinic of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Clinical Center of Serbia, Dr Koste Todorovica 26, 11000, Belgrade, Serbia
  • School of Medicine, University of Belgrade, Dr Subotica 8, 11000, Belgrade, Serbia
  • Email
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ Sanja Maricic / Nebojsa Arsenovic
  • Department of Cellular Pathology, PathLinks Pathology Services, Lincoln County Hospital, Greetwell Road, Lincoln, LN2 5QY, UK
  • Email
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
Published Online: 2014-02-13 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/s11536-013-0218-x
  • [1] Rivas-Corchado LM, González-Geroniz M, Hernández-Herrera RJ. Epidemiological profile of ovarian cancer. Ginecol Obstet Mex 2011; 79:558–564 Google Scholar

  • [2] Sehouli J, Henrich W, Braicu I, Lichtenegger W. Preoperative diagnostics in ovarian cancer. What do we really need? Gynäkologe 2006; 39:428–437 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00129-006-1839-9CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [3] Ameye L, Valentin L, Testa A.C, Van Holsbeke C, Domali E, Van Huffel S, et all. A scoring system to differentiate malignant from benign masses in specific ultrasound-based subgroups of adnexal tumors. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2009; 33:92–101 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/uog.6273CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • [4] American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Committee Opinion No. 477. The role of the obstetrician-gynecologist in the early detection of epithelial ovarian cancer. Obstet Gynecol 2011; 117:742–746 http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0b013e31821477dbCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [5] Menon U, Gentry-Maharaj A, Hallett R, Ryan A, Burnell M, Sharma A, et all. Sensitivity and specificity of multimodal and ultrasound screening for ovarian cancer, and stage distribution of detected cancers: results of the prevalence screen of the UK Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening (UKCTOCS). Lancet Oncol 2009; 10:327–340 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(09)70026-9CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • [6] Joyner AB, Runowicz CD. Ovarian cancer screening and early detection. Womens Health 2009; 5:693–699 Google Scholar

  • [7] Donach M, Yu Y, Artioli G, Banna G, Feng W, Bast RC Jr, et all. Combined use of biomarkers for detection of ovarian cancer in high-risk women. Tumour Biol 2010; 31:209–215 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13277-010-0032-xCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [8] Chan JK, Tian C, Monk BJ, Herzog T, Kapp DS, Bell J, et all. Prognostic factors for high-risk early-stage epithelial ovarian cancer: a Gynecologic Oncology Group study. Cancer 2008; 112:2202–2210 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cncr.23390CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [9] Terzic M, Dotlic J, Likic I, Ladjevic N, Brndusic N, Arsenovic N, Maricic S, Mihailovic T, Andrijasevic S. Current diagnostic approach to patients with adnexal masses: Which tools are relevant in routine praxis ? Chin J Cancer Res 2012 DOI: 10.3978/j.issn.1000-9604.2013.01.01 CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [10] Edgell T, Martin-Roussety G, Barker G, Autelitano DJ, Allen D, Grant P, et al. Phase II biomarker trial of a multimarker diagnostic for ovarian cancer. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 2010; 136:1079–1088 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00432-009-0755-5CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • [11] Visintin I, Feng Z, Longton G, Ward DC, Alvero AB, Lai Y, et all. Diagnostic markers for early detection of ovarian cancer. Clin Cancer Res 2008; 14:1065–1072 http://dx.doi.org/10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-07-1569CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [12] Chia YN, Marsden DE, Robertson G, Hacker NF. Triage of ovarian masses. Aust NZ J Obstet Gynaecol 2008; 48: 322–328 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1479-828X.2008.00825.xCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [13] Rong-Huan H, Wei-Miao Y, Li-Yan W, Yu-Yan M. Highly elevated serum CA-125 levels in patients with non-malignant gynecological diseases. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2011; 283:S107–S110 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00404-010-1717-5Google Scholar

  • [14] Vorgias G, Iavazzo C, Savvopoulos P, Myriokefalitaki E, Katsoulis M, Kalinoglou N, et all. Can the preoperative Ca-125 level predict optimal cytoreduction in patients with advanced ovarian carcinoma? A single institution cohort study. Gynecol Oncol 2009; 112:11–15 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2008.09.020Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • [15] Terzic M, Dotlic J, Likic Ladjevic I, Atanackovic J, Ladjevic N. Evaluation of the risk malignancy index diagnostic value in patients with adnexal masses. Vojnosanit Pregl 2011; 68:589–593 http://dx.doi.org/10.2298/VSP1107589TWeb of ScienceCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [16] Dotlic J, Terzic M, Likic I, Atanackovic J, Ladjevic N. Evaluation of adnexal masses: correlation of clinical stage, ultrasound and hystopathological findings. Vojnosanit Pregl 2011; 68: 861–866 http://dx.doi.org/10.2298/VSP1110861DCrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • [17] Van Calster B, Valentin L, Van Holsbeke C, Zhang J, Jurkovic D, Lissoni AA, et all. A novel approach to predict the likelihood of specific ovarian tumor pathology based on serum CA-125: a multicenter observational study. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2011; 20:2420–2422 http://dx.doi.org/10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-11-0422CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • [18] Langmar Z, Nemeth M, Vlesko G, Kiraly M, Hornyak L, Bosze P. HE4-a novel promising serum marker in the diagnosis of ovarian carcinoma. Eur J Gynaecol Oncol 2011; 32:605–610 Google Scholar

  • [19] Granato T, Midulla C, Longo F, Colaprisca B, Frati L, Anastasi E. Role of HE4, CA72.4, and CA125 in monitoring ovarian cancer. Tumour Biol. 2012 DOI: 10.1007/s13277-012-0381-8 CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [20] Anastasi E, Marchei GG, Viggiani V, Gennarini G, Frati L, Reale MG. HE4: a new potential early biomarker for the recurrence of ovarian cancer. Tumour Biol 2010; 31:113–119 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13277-009-0015-yCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [21] Zheng H, Gao Y. Serum HE4 as a Useful Biomarker in Discriminating Ovarian Cancer From Benign Pelvic Disease. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2012 DOI: 10.1097/IGC.0b013e318249bee7 CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [22] Ayhan A, Guven S, Guven ES, Kucukali T. Is there a correlation between tumor marker panel and tumor size and histopathology in well staged patients with borderline ovarian tumors? Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2007; 86:484–90 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00016340701226138CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • [23] Ugur MG, Ozturk E, Balat O, Dikensoy E, Teke S, Aydin A. Do high levels of CA 19-9 in women with mature cystic teratomas of the ovary warrant further evaluation? Eur J Gynaecol Oncol. 2012; 33:207–10 Google Scholar

  • [24] van Haaften-Day C, Shen Y, Xu F, Yu Y, Berchuck A, Havrilesky LJ, et al. OVX1, macrophage-colony stimulating factor, and CA-125-II as tumor markers for epithelial ovarian carcinoma: a critical appraisal. Cancer 2001; 92:2837–2844 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/1097-0142(20011201)92:11<2837::AID-CNCR10093>3.0.CO;2-5CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [25] Mabrouk M, Elmakky A, Caramelli E, Farina A, Mignemi G, Venturoli S, et al. Performance of peripheral (serum and molecular) blood markers for diagnosis of endometriosis. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2011 DOI: 10.1007/s00404-011-2122-2124 Web of ScienceCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [26] Sørensen SS, Mosgaard BJ. Combination of cancer antigen 125 and carcinoembryonic antigen can improve ovarian cancer diagnosis. Dan Med Bull. 2011; 58:A4331 Google Scholar

About the article

Published Online: 2014-02-13

Published in Print: 2014-04-01


Citation Information: Open Medicine, Volume 9, Issue 2, Pages 210–216, ISSN (Online) 2391-5463, DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/s11536-013-0218-x.

Export Citation

© 2014 Versita Warsaw. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License. BY-NC-ND 3.0

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in