<?xml version="1.0" encoding="ISO-8859-1"?><article xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance">
<front>
<journal-meta>
<journal-id>0300-9041</journal-id>
<journal-title><![CDATA[Ginecología y obstetricia de México]]></journal-title>
<abbrev-journal-title><![CDATA[Ginecol. obstet. Méx.]]></abbrev-journal-title>
<issn>0300-9041</issn>
<publisher>
<publisher-name><![CDATA[Federación Mexicana de Colegios de Obstetricia y Ginecología A.C.]]></publisher-name>
</publisher>
</journal-meta>
<article-meta>
<article-id>S0300-90412018000800519</article-id>
<article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.24245/gom.v86i8.1399</article-id>
<title-group>
<article-title xml:lang="es"><![CDATA[Comparación de tres índices ecográficos para evaluación del riesgo de malignidad de los tumores anexiales]]></article-title>
<article-title xml:lang="en"><![CDATA[Comparison of three ultrasound index in evaluating the risk of malignancy of adnexal tumors]]></article-title>
</title-group>
<contrib-group>
<contrib contrib-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[González-Burgos]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[Oliva M]]></given-names>
</name>
<xref ref-type="aff" rid="Aff"/>
</contrib>
<contrib contrib-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Álvarez-Licona]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[Nelson Eduardo]]></given-names>
</name>
<xref ref-type="aff" rid="Aff"/>
</contrib>
<contrib contrib-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Lever-Rosas]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[Carlos Daniel]]></given-names>
</name>
<xref ref-type="aff" rid="Aff"/>
</contrib>
</contrib-group>
<aff id="Af1">
<institution><![CDATA[,Hospital Militar de Especialidades de la Mujer y Neonatología  ]]></institution>
<addr-line><![CDATA[Ciudad de México ]]></addr-line>
<country>México</country>
</aff>
<aff id="Af2">
<institution><![CDATA[,Instituto Politécnico Nacional Estudios de Posgrado e Investigación de la Escuela Superior de Medicina ]]></institution>
<addr-line><![CDATA[Ciudad de México ]]></addr-line>
<country>Mexico</country>
</aff>
<aff id="Af3">
<institution><![CDATA[,Hospital Central Militar  ]]></institution>
<addr-line><![CDATA[Ciudad de México ]]></addr-line>
<country>México</country>
</aff>
<pub-date pub-type="pub">
<day>00</day>
<month>00</month>
<year>2018</year>
</pub-date>
<pub-date pub-type="epub">
<day>00</day>
<month>00</month>
<year>2018</year>
</pub-date>
<volume>86</volume>
<numero>8</numero>
<fpage>519</fpage>
<lpage>529</lpage>
<copyright-statement/>
<copyright-year/>
<self-uri xlink:href="http://www.scielo.org.mx/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&amp;pid=S0300-90412018000800519&amp;lng=en&amp;nrm=iso"></self-uri><self-uri xlink:href="http://www.scielo.org.mx/scielo.php?script=sci_abstract&amp;pid=S0300-90412018000800519&amp;lng=en&amp;nrm=iso"></self-uri><self-uri xlink:href="http://www.scielo.org.mx/scielo.php?script=sci_pdf&amp;pid=S0300-90412018000800519&amp;lng=en&amp;nrm=iso"></self-uri><abstract abstract-type="short" xml:lang="es"><p><![CDATA[Resumen  Objetivo: Determinar y comparar el rendimiento diagnóstico de las Reglas Ecográficas Simples (RES), Índice Morfológico Ecográfico (IME) e Índice de Riesgo de Malignidad de Jacobs (IRM) en el diagnóstico de benignidad o malignidad de un tumor anexial.  Material y método: Estudio retrospectivo, transversal y analítico efectuado en el Hospital Militar de Especialidades de la Mujer y Neonatología de la Ciudad de México. Se incluyeron pacientes con diagnóstico ecográfico de tumor anexial intervenidas quirúrgicamente. Se estudió el rendimiento diagnóstico de los índices comparado con el diagnóstico histopatológico mediante tablas de contingencia.  Resultados: Se analizaron 141 pacientes y 166 tumores; 22 casos fueron bilaterales. De la muestra analizada, 79 eran pacientes premenopáusicas y 62 posmenopáusicas. Los casos de neoplasia maligna fueron 43 (26%) y benigna 123 (74%). El Índice Morfológico Ecográfico tuvo sensibilidad de 98.8%, especificidad de 33.3%, valor predictivo positivo de 33.9% y valor predictivo negativo de 97.6%. Las Reglas Ecográficas Simples reportaron una sensibilidad de 97.2%, especificidad de 71.1%, valor predictivo positivo de 55.6% y valor predictivo positivo de 98.6%; y el Índice de Riesgo de Malignidad de Jacobs una sensibilidad de 72.7%, especificidad de 79.3%, valor predictivo positivo de 55.8% y valor predictivo positivo de 89.4%.  Conclusiones: Las Reglas Ecográficas Simples son un modelo prequirúrgico que en 82% de los casos permitieron clasificar los tumores anexiales en benignos o malignos. Los casos indeterminados deben ser reevaluados por un ecografista experto. El método es reproducible por evaluadores de mediana experiencia y susceptible de aplicarse en instituciones hospitalarias de segundo y tercer nivel de atención.]]></p></abstract>
<abstract abstract-type="short" xml:lang="en"><p><![CDATA[Abstract  Objective: To determine and compare the diagnostic performance of the Simple Ultrasound-Based Rules (SUR), Sonographic Morphology Index (SMI) and the Jacob´s Risk Malignancy Index (RMI) in the diagnosis of benignity or malignancy to an adnexal tumor.  Materials and methods: Retrospective, cross-sectional and analytical study at the at the Hospital Militar de Especialidades de la Mujer y Neonatología of Mexico City. Patients with ultrasound diagnosis of adnexal tumor who underwent surgery were included. The diagnostic performance of the indices compared to histopathological diagnosis was studied using contingency tables.  Results: 141 women and 166 tumors were included for analysis, 22 cases were bilateral. Of the sample analyzed, 79 were premenopausal and 62 postmenopausal. Cases of malignant neoplasm were 43 (25.9%) and benign 123 (74.1%). The SMI had a sensitivity of 98.8%, specificity of 33.3%, positive predictive value (PPV) of 33.9%, and negative predictive value (NPV) of 97.6%. SUR showed a sensitivity of 97.2%, specificity of 71.1%, PPV of 55.6% and NPV of 98.6%; And RMI had a sensitivity of 72.7%, specificity of 79.3%, PPV of 55.8% and NPV of 89.4%.  Conclusions: The simple ultrasonographic rules are a presurgical model that in 82% of the cases allowed to classify the adnexal tumors in benign or malignant. Indeterminate cases should be reevaluated by an expert sonographer. The method is reproducible by evaluators of medium experience and susceptible of being applied in hospital institutions of the second and third level of care.]]></p></abstract>
<kwd-group>
<kwd lng="es"><![CDATA[Riesgo]]></kwd>
<kwd lng="es"><![CDATA[malignidad]]></kwd>
<kwd lng="es"><![CDATA[tumores anexiales]]></kwd>
<kwd lng="es"><![CDATA[posmenopáusicas]]></kwd>
<kwd lng="es"><![CDATA[neoplasia maligna]]></kwd>
<kwd lng="es"><![CDATA[tumor]]></kwd>
<kwd lng="es"><![CDATA[ultrasonido ginecológico]]></kwd>
<kwd lng="es"><![CDATA[cáncer de ovario]]></kwd>
<kwd lng="es"><![CDATA[masas anexiales]]></kwd>
<kwd lng="es"><![CDATA[índices ecográficos]]></kwd>
<kwd lng="en"><![CDATA[Risk]]></kwd>
<kwd lng="en"><![CDATA[Malignancy]]></kwd>
<kwd lng="en"><![CDATA[Adnexal tumors]]></kwd>
<kwd lng="en"><![CDATA[Postmenopausal]]></kwd>
<kwd lng="en"><![CDATA[Malignant neoplasm]]></kwd>
<kwd lng="en"><![CDATA[Tumor]]></kwd>
<kwd lng="en"><![CDATA[Gynecological ultrasound]]></kwd>
<kwd lng="en"><![CDATA[Ovarian cancer]]></kwd>
<kwd lng="en"><![CDATA[Adnexal masses]]></kwd>
<kwd lng="en"><![CDATA[Sonographic index]]></kwd>
</kwd-group>
</article-meta>
</front><back>
<ref-list>
<ref id="B1">
<label>1</label><nlm-citation citation-type="">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Pérez-López]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[FR]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<source><![CDATA[Peri- and post-menopausal incidental adnexal masses and the risk of sporadic ovarian malignancy: new insights and clinical management]]></source>
<year></year>
</nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B2">
<label>2</label><nlm-citation citation-type="">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Ameye]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[L]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<source><![CDATA[A scoring system to differentiate malignant from benign masses in specifc ultrasound-based subgroups of adnexal tumors]]></source>
<year></year>
</nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B3">
<label>3</label><nlm-citation citation-type="">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Sayasneh]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[A]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<source><![CDATA[The characteristic ultrasound features of specific types of ovarian pathology (review)]]></source>
<year></year>
</nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B4">
<label>4</label><nlm-citation citation-type="">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Timmerman]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[D]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<source><![CDATA[Simple ultrasound rules to distinguish between benign and malignant adnexal masses before surgery: prospective validation by IOTA group]]></source>
<year></year>
</nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B5">
<label>5</label><nlm-citation citation-type="">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Mohaghegh]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[P]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Rockall]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[AG]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<source><![CDATA[Imaging strategy for early ovarian cancer: characterization of adnexal masses with conventional and advanced imaging techniques]]></source>
<year></year>
</nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B6">
<label>6</label><nlm-citation citation-type="">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Kaijser]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[J]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<source><![CDATA[Presurgical diagnosis of adnexal tumours using mathematical models and scoring systems: a systematic review and meta-analysis]]></source>
<year></year>
</nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B7">
<label>7</label><nlm-citation citation-type="">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Harris]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[RD]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<source><![CDATA[ACR Appropriateness CriteriaÒ Clinically Suspected Adnexal Mass]]></source>
<year></year>
</nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B8">
<label>8</label><nlm-citation citation-type="">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Stukan]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[M]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<source><![CDATA[Usefulness of Diagnostic Indices Comprising Clinical, Sonographic and Biomarker Data for Discriminating Benign from Malignant Ovarian Masses]]></source>
<year></year>
</nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B9">
<label>9</label><nlm-citation citation-type="">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Amor]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[F]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<source><![CDATA[GI-RADS reporting system for ultrasound evaluation of adnexal masses in clinical practice: a prospective multicenter study]]></source>
<year></year>
</nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B10">
<label>10</label><nlm-citation citation-type="">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Van Holsbeke]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[C]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<source><![CDATA[Ultrasound methods to distinguish between malignant and benign adnexal masses in the hands of examiners with different levels of experience]]></source>
<year></year>
</nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B11">
<label>11</label><nlm-citation citation-type="">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Valentin]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[L]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<source><![CDATA[Adnexal masses difficult to classify as benign or malignant using subjective assessment of grayscale and Doppler ultrasound findings: logistic regression models do not help.]]></source>
<year></year>
</nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B12">
<label>12</label><nlm-citation citation-type="">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Valentin]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[L]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<source><![CDATA[Comparison of "pattern recognition" and logistic regression models for discrimination between benign and malignant pelvic masses: a prospective cross- validation]]></source>
<year></year>
</nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B13">
<label>13</label><nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Gallardo-Rincón]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[D]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<article-title xml:lang=""><![CDATA[Tercer Consenso Nacional de Cáncer de Ovario 2011]]></article-title>
<source><![CDATA[Rev Invest Clin]]></source>
<year>2011</year>
<volume>63</volume>
<numero>6</numero>
<issue>6</issue>
<page-range>665-702</page-range></nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B14">
<label>14</label><nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Arteaga Gómez]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[A]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<article-title xml:lang=""><![CDATA[Cáncer de ovario diagnóstico y tratamiento. Guías de Práctica Clínica COMEGO]]></article-title>
<source><![CDATA[Ginecol Obstet Mex]]></source>
<year>2010</year>
<volume>78</volume>
<numero>4</numero>
<issue>4</issue>
<page-range>S415-35</page-range></nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B15">
<label>15</label><nlm-citation citation-type="">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Treviño-Báez]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[JD]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<source><![CDATA[Exactitud diagnóstica del índice de riesgo de malignidad II en mujeres posmenopáusicas con tumor anexial]]></source>
<year></year>
</nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B16">
<label>16</label><nlm-citation citation-type="">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[De Priest]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[PD]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Varner]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[E]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Powell]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[J]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Fried]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[A]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Puls]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[L]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Higgins]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[R]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Shenson]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[D]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<source><![CDATA[The efficacy of a Sonographic Morphology Indexin Identifying Ovarian Cancer: A Multi-institutional Investigation]]></source>
<year></year>
</nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B17">
<label>17</label><nlm-citation citation-type="">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Jeoung]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[HY]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<source><![CDATA[The efficacy of sonographic morphology indexing and serum CA-125 for preoperative differentiation of malignant from benign ovarian tumors in patients after operation with ovarian tumors]]></source>
<year></year>
</nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B18">
<label>18</label><nlm-citation citation-type="">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Van Nagell Jr]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[J]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Hoff]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[JT]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<source><![CDATA[Transvaginal ultrasonography in ovarian cancer screening: current perspectives]]></source>
<year></year>
</nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B19">
<label>19</label><nlm-citation citation-type="">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Nunes]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[N]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<source><![CDATA[Use of IOTA simple rules for diagnosis of ovarian cancer: meta-analysis]]></source>
<year></year>
</nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B20">
<label>20</label><nlm-citation citation-type="">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Jacobs]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[I]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<source><![CDATA[A risk of malignancy index incorporating CA 125, ultrasound and menopausal status for the accurate preoperative diagnosis of ovarian cancer]]></source>
<year></year>
</nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B21">
<label>21</label><nlm-citation citation-type="">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Aktürk]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[E]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<source><![CDATA[Comparison of four malignancy risk indices in the detection of malignant ovarian masses]]></source>
<year></year>
</nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B22">
<label>22</label><nlm-citation citation-type="">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Levine]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[D]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<source><![CDATA[Management of asymptomatic ovarian and other adnexal cyst imaged at US. Society of Radiologists in Ultrasound Consensus Conference Statement]]></source>
<year></year>
</nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B23">
<label>23</label><nlm-citation citation-type="">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Jung]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[SI]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<source><![CDATA[Ultrasonography of ovarian masses using a pattern recognition approach]]></source>
<year></year>
</nlm-citation>
</ref>
</ref-list>
</back>
</article>
