Reply: The performance of the risk of ovarian malignancy algorithm
2011

Reply on the Risk of Ovarian Malignancy Algorithm

Sample size: 389 publication Evidence: moderate

Author Information

Author(s): Van Gorp T, Timmerman D, Vergote I

Primary Institution: Universitair Ziekenhuis Leuven, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven

Conclusion

The study found that neither HE4 nor the combination of HE4 and CA125 improves the diagnosis of ovarian cancer in patients with an adnexal mass.

Supporting Evidence

  • The study had a sample size of 389 patients, which is larger than previous studies.
  • The authors noted that the addition of HE4 to CA125 did not improve diagnostic accuracy.
  • The study faced challenges with missing data and patient withdrawals.

Takeaway

The study looked at a test for ovarian cancer and found it didn't work better than existing tests, which is disappointing.

Methodology

The study involved a prospective analysis of patients with pelvic masses who planned to undergo surgery.

Potential Biases

There was a potential selection bias due to the patient population being from a tertiary center.

Limitations

The study had issues with missing pathology reports and patient withdrawals.

Participant Demographics

The study included patients with pelvic masses, with a notable proportion of postmenopausal patients and various tumor types.

Statistical Information

P-Value

0.17

Statistical Significance

p=0.17

Digital Object Identifier (DOI)

10.1038/bjc.2011.225

Want to read the original?

Access the complete publication on the publisher's website

View Original Publication