Browsing by Author "Dede, Murat"
Now showing 1 - 4 of 4
- Results Per Page
- Sort Options
Item Comparison of risk of malignancy index (RMI), CA125, CA 19-9, ultrasound score, and menopausal status in borderline ovarian tumor(Taylor & Francis, 2012-06) Alanbay, İbrahim; Aktürk, Erhan; Çoksüer, Hakan; Ercan, Mutlu; Karaşahin, Emre; Dede, Murat; Yenen, Müfit Cemal; Başer, İskender; Ozan, Hakan; Uludağ Üniversitesi/Tıp Fakültesi/Kadın Hastalıkları ve Doğum Anabilim Dalı.; DKZ-4159-2022; 7003908072Objective: The aim of this study was to assess the prognostic values of risk of malignancy index (RMI IV), ultrasound score, menopausal status, and serum CA125 and CA19-9 level in patients with borderline ovarian tumor (BOT). Methods: Fifty women having borderline ovarian tumor (BOT) and 5O individuals with benign adnexal mass were enrolled in this retrospective study. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive values, negative predictive values and diagnostic accuracy of preoperative serum levels of the CA125 and CA19-9, ultrasound findings and menopausal status, and RMI IV were calculated for prediction of discrimination between BOTs and benign adnexal masses and the results were compared. Results: The RMI IV was the best method for discrimination between BOTs and benign adnexal masses and was more accurate than the other parameters. When Receiver Operator Characteristic area under the curves for menopausal status was analyzed, serum CA 125 and CA19-9 level, ultrasound score, RMI IV(CA125), and RMI IV(CA19-9) were, 0.580, 0.625, 0.548, 0.694, 0.734 and 0.711, respectively. The best RMI IV cut-off was found to be 200 for discrimination of benign and BOT lesions. In the RMI formulation, replacing CA125 with CA19-9 didn't affect RMI IV sensitivity and specificity for discrimination. Conclusion: Compared to ultrasound, menopausal status, CA-125, CA19-9, the RMI IV was found to be the best predictive method for differentiation of BOTs from benign adnexal masses. RMI IV cut-off value of 200 is suitable for differentiation of benign and BOT's.Item Comparison of risk of malignancy indices; RMI 1-4 in borderline ovarian tumor(Imr Press, 2012) Yenen, Müfit Cemal; Aktürk, Erhan; Ozan, Hakan; Dede, Murat; Alanbay, İbrahim; Ercan, Cihangir Mutlu; Çoksuer, Hakan; Karaşahin, Kazım Emre; Uludağ Üniversitesi/Tıp Fakültesi/Kadın Hastalıkları ve Doğum Anabilim Dalı.; 0000-0003-3457-4283; 0000-0002-5511-6938; W-6909-2019; A-3349-2017; 23670183700; 8941445200; 6503917949; 28367755400Purpose: The aim of this study was to evaluate prognostic values of the risk of malignancy index (RMI)/1-4 in patients with borderline ovarian tumors (BOTs). Methods: The study consisted of 50 patients with BOT diagnosed and treated between 2005-2010 and 50 patients with benign adnexal massses between 2009-2010 as a control comparison group in the retropsective study. Preoperative serum CA125, U score, tumor size (S), and menopausal status were recorded. The RMI 1-3 was calculated according to the formula; UxMxCA125 and RMI 4 formulation was; UxMxCA125xS. S equaled 1 for tumor size < 7 cm and was 2 when size >= 7 cm. The RMI 1-4 indices were calculated for all patients together with the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and diagnostic accuracy (DA). The performances of RMI indices were evaluated by McNemar's test and determined the best score cutoff value by the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. Results: The mean age, median value of CA 125, ultrasound score, menopausal status, median values of RMI 1-4 of BOTs were statistically higher than benign adnexal masses. The sensitivity of RMI 1-4 was 26, 36, 62, and 60% at cutoff 200 level, respectively. The areas under curve of RMI 1-4 were found to be 0.676, 0.665, 0.668 and 0.734, respectively. DA of RMI 1-4 was found to be 56, 59, 50, and 71, respectively. When RMI 1-4 indices were compared with each other RMI 4 was the best RMI for BOTs. Conclusion: RMI 4 was the best predictive RMI for preoperative discrimination of BOT at a cutoff level of 200.Item Comparison of tumor markers and clinicopathological features in serous and mucinous borderline ovarian tumors(Imr Press, 2012) Alanbay, İbrahim; Aktürk, Erhan; Çoksüer, Hakan; Ercan, Cihangir Mutlu; Karaşahin, Kazım Emre; Dede, Murat; Yenen, Müfit Cemal; Dilek, Saffet; Ozan, Hakan; Uludağ Üniversitesi/Tıp Fakültesi/Kadın Hastalıkları ve Doğum Anabilim Dalı.; 7003908072Objective: The aim of this study was to assess tumor markers and clinicopathological findings of patients with serous and mucinous borderline ovarian tumor (BOT) features. Methods: The study consisted of 50 patients that were diagnosed with and treated for BOT between 2005- 2010 in three centers. CA125, CA19-9, and CA125+CA19-9 levels and clinicopathological features were compared in serous and mucinous histotypes. In serous and mucinous BOTs, correlations between tumor markers and demographics such as age, menopausal status, parity, clinical findings (stage, relapse, adjuvant chemotherapy, cytology, lymph node involvement and tumoral morphology (cystic-solid content, papilla, septation) were evaluated. Results: There were no significant differences between serous and mucinous tumors in the clinicopathological features such as stage, tumor markers, age, menopausal status, or cytology. In serous BOTs we found a significant relation between elevated CA 125+ CA 19-9, CA 19-9 and recurrence (p<0.05). Also there was a significant relation between elevated CA 125+ CA 19-9, CA 19-9 and cytology positivity (p<0.05). We found a significant relation in serous BOTs between elevated CA125+CA19-9, adjuvant chemotherapy and lymph node metastases (p<0.05). Also In mucinous BOTs with papilla formation we found a significant relation between elevated CA125 and CA 125+ CA19-9 (p<0.05). There was significant relation between cytology positivity and elevated CA 19-9 in mucinous BOTs (p<0.05). Conclusion: Serum tumor markers of serous and mucinous BOTs were different in relation to their clinicopathological features. This may reflect differences of serous and mucinous BOTs.Item Prevalence of cervical cytological abnormalities in Turkey(Wiley, 2009-09) Ayhan, Ali; Dursun, Polat; Kuşçu, Esra; Mülayim, Barış; Haberal, Nihan; Özen, Özlem; Köse, M. Faruk; Turan, A. Taner; Özgül, Nejat; Demir, Ö. Faruk; Çavuşoğlu, H. Deniz; Yüce, Kunter; Kuzey, Gamze Mocan; Salman, M. Coşkun; Velipaşaoğlu, Melih; Yenen, Müfit C.; Dede, Murat; Onan, M. Anıl; Güner, Haldun; Taşkıran, Cağatay; Erdem, Özlem; Saraçoglu, Ferit; Serin, Serdar; Özçelik, Bülent; Soyer, Işın; Güzin, Kadir; Doğanyılmaz, Soner; Kara, Fadil; Kıran, Gürkan; Metindir, Jale; Özalp, Sinan; Vardar, M. Ali; Zeren, Handan; Dilek, Saffet; Bozkaya, Hasan; Güven, Süleyman; Ersöz, Şafak; Açıkalın, Arbil; Meydanlı, Mutlu; Çetinarslan, İlknur; Gökaslan, Hüsnü; Eren, Funda; Çelik, Çetin; Yılmaz, Osman; Çelik, Hüsnü; Aksaz, Zeliha; Koçak, Cengiz; Bağcı, Hafize; Davutoğlu, Bilge Sel; Hakverdi, Ali Ulvi; Soysal, Mehmet Emin; Kaya, Gülcan; Yanık, Ali; Arıcı, Sema; Çetin, Halit; Mutlu, Ahmet Emin; Kolusari, Ali; Kösem, Mustafa; Şahin, Güler; Demirtürk, Fazlı; Gültekin, Murat; Karaca, Mehmet; Harma, Mehmet; Harma, Müge; Batur, Şebnem; Demirbağ, Nilgün; Baykal, Cem; Doğan, Işın; Şam, Aslı Demir; Ozan, Hakan; Uludağ Üniversitesi/Tıp Fakültesi/Kadın Hastalıkları ve Doğum Anabilim Dalı.; 7003908072Objective: To evaluate retrospectively the prevalence of cervical cytological abnormalities in patient records obtained from healthcare centers in Turkey. Method: Demographic characteristics and data on cervical cytological abnormalities were evaluated from patients who underwent flap tests in healthcare centers in 2007. Results: Data were collected from 33 healthcare centers totaling 140 334 patients. Overall, the prevalence of cervical cytological abnormalities was 1.8%; the prevalence of ASCUS, ASC-H, LSIL, HSIL, and AGC was 1.07%, 0.07%, 0.3%, 0.17%, and 0.08%, respectively. The prevalence of preinvasive cervical neoplasia was 1.7% and the prevalence of cytologically diagnosed invasive neoplasia was 0.06%. Conclusion: The abnormal cervical cytological prevalence rate in Turkey is lower than in Europe and North America. This might be due to sociocultural differences, lack of population-based screening programs, or a lower HPV prevalence rate in Turkey.