Correlation of cancer risk evaluation and early detection (CADET) scores with abnormal ultrasonographic ovarian findings

J. Hasson, G. Rattan, I. Heller, J. B. Lessing, D. Grisaru*

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Abstract

Objective: To determine the utility of a modified version of ovarian cancer-focused cancer risk evaluation and early detection (CADET) scores as a screening tool for ultrasonographic ovarian findings. Study design: Prospective pilot study. Main outcome measures: CADET scores were compared with abnormal ultrasonographic ovarian findings of peri- and postmenopausal women who attended their gynecologist for a routine check-up. The women filled in the CADET questionnaire before seeing their gynecologists who were blinded to the CADET results. The women whom they referred for pelvic transvaginal ultrasonographic examination comprised the study group. The results of their scans were compared with their CADET scores. Results: Of the 181 peri- and postmenopausal women who were candidates for this study, 154 were referred for ultrasonography, of whom 38 (24%, Group A) had abnormal ovarian scans (30 simple cysts and 8 complex findings). The other 116 (76%) women had normal sonograms (Group B). Demographic characteristics were similar for both groups. Thirteen Group A women (34%) and 52 Group B women (45%) had positive CADET scores (p = NS). The average group CADET scores were also not significantly different (0.8 ± 1.7 for Group A and 1.7 ± 2.5 for Group B). Conclusion: CADET scores did not correlate with abnormal ultrasonographic ovarian findings.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)265-268
Number of pages4
JournalEuropean Journal of Gynaecological Oncology
Volume33
Issue number3
StatePublished - 2012

Keywords

  • Early detection
  • Ovarian cancer
  • Screening
  • Symptoms

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Correlation of cancer risk evaluation and early detection (CADET) scores with abnormal ultrasonographic ovarian findings'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this