This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in JAMA  Topic Collections  • Health Policy  • Alert me on articles by topic

Tracy Hampton, PhD

JAMA. 2006;295:1889.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 137 words of the full text and any section headings.

A new evidence report by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality has assessed the effectiveness of different diagnostic methods for detecting adnexal masses, enlargements in the area of the ovaries and fallopian tubes that are sometimes signs of ovarian cancer (http://www.ahrq.gov/downloads/pub/evidence/pdf/adnexal/adnexal.pdf). All methods analyzed showed trade-offs between sensitivity and specificity, and it was unclear whether any could be used to maximize appropriate treatment and minimize unnecessary surgery.

Through a systematic literature review, investigators evaluated bimanual pelvic examination; ultrasound; magnetic resonance imaging; computed tomography; positron emission tomography with the tracer fluorodeoxyglucose; CA-125 blood test; and scoring systems that incorporated multiple clinical, laboratory, and radiological findings. Most of the literature reviewed did not provide enough detail on patient characteristics to allow confident estimation of the outcomes of different diagnostic strategies, the report concluded.