cover
Article Per Year (5 Year)
All
Home Page
OAI Link
Editorial Team
Contact
Reviewer
Google Scholar
Contact Name
eko subaktiansyah
Contact Email
eko.subaktiansyah@gmail.com
Phone
-
Journal Mail Official
support@inajog.com
Editorial Address
-
Location
Kota adm. jakarta pusat,
Dki jakarta
INDONESIA
Indonesian Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology (Majalah Obstetri dan Ginekologi Indonesia)
Published by Perkumpulan Obstetri dan Ginekologi Indonesia
ISSN : 23386401     EISSN : 23387335     DOI : -
Core Subject : Health,
Health Professions Medicine & Pharmacology Public Health
The Indonesian Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology is an official publication of the Indonesian Society of Obstetrics and Gynekology. INAJOG is published quarterly.
Arjuna Subject : -
Articles 35 Documents
 1   2   3   4 
Search results for , issue "Volume. 2, No. 1, January 2014" : 35 Documents clear
Serum Level of Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor (VEGF) can be used to Assess Response of Radiation Therapy in Cervical Cancer Ferry Armanza; Andrijono Andrijono; Bambang Sutrisna
Indonesian Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology Volume. 2, No. 1, January 2014
Publisher : Indonesian Socety of Obstetrics and Gynecology

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | Full PDF (125.533 KB) | DOI: 10.32771/inajog.v2i1.378

Abstract

Objective: To compare the sensitivity and specificity of Squamous Cell Carcinoma (SCC) and Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor (VEGF) levels to assess the response of radiation therapy. Method: The study was conducted by the method of analytic observational cohort study in 24 patients with cervical cancer stage II-B and III-B in RSCM that met inclusion criteria. Examination of VEGF and SCC in serum samples was performed in the Prodia Laboratory Jakarta. The examination was conducted twice before and after radiation therapy. The subjects were treated by radiation therapy/chemoradiation according to standard procedures. After the completion of radiation was declared, the response of radiation therapy was conducted by clinical assessment. Result: Of the 24 subjects, we obtained a mean level of SCC pre-radiation was 23.43 ± 5.84 ng/ml and post-radiation was 2.19 ± 0.68 ng/ml. The mean VEGF pre-radiation was 790.41 ± 111.06 pg/ml and post-radiation was 497.47 ± 79.26 pg/ml. ROC curves of each tumor marker obtained SCC pre-radiation AUC 40%, p 0.53 (CI 0.18-0.68) and SCC post-radiation AUC 48.1%, p 0.91 (CI 0.21-0,75) can not be used as a diagnostic and prognostic factors of response to radiation therapy. VEGF pre-radiation produced an AUC of 17.5%, p 0.04 (CI 0.00-0.36), thus cannot be used as a prognostic factor for response to radiation therapy. VEGF after radiation produced an AUC of 92.5%, p 0.01 (CI 0.81-1.00), thus can be a diagnostic factor for response to radiation therapy. VEGF post-radiation with cut-off point 614.75 pg/ml had a sensitivity 80%, specificity 75%, NDP 94.12%, NDN 42.86%; RKP 3.2; RKN 0.26 and accuracy 79.16%. There is a significant correlation between the decrease of serum VEGF level post-radiation and a positive response of radiation therapy (p 0.01, CI 1.00-3.23). Conclusion: Examination of VEGF levels can be used to assess the response of radiation therapy with a sensitivity of 80% and specificity of 75%. Keywords: cervical cancer, SCC, therapeutic response, VEGF
HER2/Neu Expression was Different between Benign, Borderline and Malignant Epithelial Ovarian Tumors Yona S. Hadisubroto; Ketut Suwiyoga
Indonesian Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology Volume. 2, No. 1, January 2014
Publisher : Indonesian Socety of Obstetrics and Gynecology

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | Full PDF (94.205 KB) | DOI: 10.32771/inajog.v2i1.379

Abstract

Objective: To determine the difference of HER2/neu expression in benign, borderline and malignant epithelial ovarian tumor. Method: An analytic cross-sectional study was performed on 49 samples of epithelial ovarian cases which were divided into three groups: twelve cases of benign epithelial ovarian tumor, 9 cases of borderline epithelial ovarian tumor and 28 cases of malignant epithelial ovarian tumor. Paraffin embedded tissue samples was cut, stained with HER2/neu imunohistochemistry and examined in Pathology Laboratory at Sanglah Hospital. The other data was collected from medical record samples. The data was analysed using One Way Anova test and Chi-square test with level of confidence α = 0.05. Result: There were 13 cases (46.43%) of the HER2/neu over expression in malignant epithelial ovarian tumors, 2 cases (22.22%) of the HER2/neu over expression in borderline epithelial ovarian tumors and 1 case (9.09%) of the HER2/neu over expression in benign epithelial ovarian tumors. With p = 0.048 (p < 0.05), there are differentiation of HER2/neu expression in benign, borderline and malignant epithelial ovarian tumors. Conclusion: In this study HER2/neu expression was different between benign, borderline and malignant epithelial ovarian tumors. Keywords: benign epithelial ovarian tumor, borderline epithelial ovarian tumor, HER2/neu, malignant epithelial ovarian tumor, ovarian cancer.
Risk of Malignancy Index is not accurate as a Triage Tool for Ovarian Cancer Gregorius Tanamas; Jasmine Iskandar; Tofan W Utami; Tricia D Anggraeni; Kartiwa H Nuryanto
Indonesian Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology Volume. 2, No. 1, January 2014
Publisher : Indonesian Socety of Obstetrics and Gynecology

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | Full PDF (110.17 KB) | DOI: 10.32771/inajog.v2i1.380

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate Risk of Malignancy Index (RMI) as a triage tool for ovarian cancer in Dr. Cipto Mangunkusumo Hospital. Method: This is a retrospective study conducted from January 2008-December 2012 in patients diagnosed with ovarian mass. Patients admitted for surgery due to ovarian masses were included to this study. RMI 3 score was calculated based on ultrasonography examination in Dr. Cipto Mangunkusumo Hospital, CA-125 test and menopausal status. Patients without final pathological report and incomplete data were excluded from study. Data were analysed using SPSS 20 to evaluate RMI result and final pathlogical report in benign and malignant case. Result: From 882 patients identified with ovarian masses from cancer registry, only 99 patients aged 17-70 y.o were included in this study. Most of the patients were nully-parity (28.3%), non-menopausal women (60.6%), normal body mass index (40.4%), and with stage IIIC ovarian cancer (33.3%). Ultrasonography examination showed that most of patients had solid mass and ascites (19.2%). Meanwhile, CA-125 showed that patients with <35 U/ml were 10.1% and ≥ 35 U/ml were 89.9%. Patients with RMI scores <200 (benign cases) were 19 cases (19.2%) and ≥ 200 (malignant cases) were 80 cases (80.8%). Meanwhile, patients with benign final pathological report were 23 cases (23.2%) and malignant cases were 76 cases (76.8%). There was no statistical difference in RMI between benign and malignant cases based on final pathological report. Conclusion: Our study showed that RMI was not accurate as triage tool for ovarian cancer in our hospital. Further investigation and more patients are needed to confirm this study. Keywords: CA-125, menopausal status, ovarian cancer, risk of malignancy index (RMI), ultrasonography.
Prevention of Recurrent Urinary Tract Infections in Postmenopausal Women Darrell Fernando; Budi I Santoso
Indonesian Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology Volume. 2, No. 1, January 2014
Publisher : Indonesian Socety of Obstetrics and Gynecology

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | Full PDF (130.62 KB) | DOI: 10.32771/inajog.v2i1.381

Abstract

Objective: To determine the most effective and applicable methods to reduce recurrence of urinary tract infections in postmenopausal women. Method: A search was conducted on Pubmed, NEJM, BMJ, and Google. After screening and selection, six articles were considered useful; comprising of two original research articles, one systematic review, and three society guidelines. Result: Society guidelines recommended continuous antimicrobial prophylaxis, with postcoital antimicrobial prophylaxis as an alternative. The first research article found similar results in continous antimicrobial prophylaxis group and intermittent antimicrobial prophylaxis group. The second research article found no significant difference in cranberry and trimethoprim group. The systematic review revealed vaginal estrogens are effective in preventing recurrent UTI, but the type of estrogen is less clear. Oral estrogens are not effective. Conclusion: Prevention of recurrent urinary tract infections in postmenopausal women include risk factor identification, non-antimicrobial prophylaxis with cranberry and vaginal estrogen preparations, and antimicrobial prophylaxis (continuous or intermittent). Keywords: postmenopausal, prevention, recurrent urinary tract infection.
Post-menopausal Women: The Tip of an Iceberg R Muharam Natadisastr R. Muharam Natadisastra
Indonesian Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology Volume. 2, No. 1, January 2014
Publisher : Indonesian Socety of Obstetrics and Gynecology

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.32771/inajog.v2i1.1086

Abstract

N/A

Page 4 of 4 | Total Record : 35

 1   2   3   4 

Filter by Year

2014 2014


Reset
Filter By Issues
All Issue Volume 13. No. 3 July 2025 Volume 13. No. 2 April 2025 Volume 13. No. 1 January 2025 Volume 12 No. 4 October 2024 Volume 12 No. 3 Jully 2024 Volume 12 No. 2 April 2024 Volume 12 No. 1 January 2024 Volume 11 No. 4 October 2023 Volume 11 No. 3 July 2023 Volume 11 No. 2 April 2023 Volume 11 No. 1 January 2023 Volume 10 No. 4 Oktober 2022 Volume 10 No. 3 July 2022 Volume 10 No. 2 April 2022 Volume 10 No. 1 January 2022 Volume 9 No. 4 October 2021 Volume 9 No. 3 July 2021 Volume 9 No. 2 April 2021 Volume 9 No. 1 January 2021 Volume 8 No. 4 October 2020 Volume 8 No. 3 July 2020 Volume 8 No. 2 April 2020 Volume 8 No. 1 January 2020 Volume 7 No. 4 October 2019 Volume 7 No. 3 July 2019 Volume 7 No. 2 April 2019 Volume 7 No. 2 April 2019 Volume 7, No. 1 January 2019 Volume 7, No. 1 January 2019 Volume 6 No. 4 October 2018 Volume 6 No. 4 October 2018 Volume 6 No. 3 July 2018 Volume 6 No. 3 July 2018 Volume 6. No. 2 April 2018 Volume 6. No. 2 April 2018 Volume 6. No. 1. January 2018 Volume 6. No. 1. January 2018 Volume. 5, No. 4, October 2017 Volume. 5, No. 4, October 2017 Volume. 5, No. 3, July 2017 Volume. 5, No. 3, July 2017 Volume. 5, No. 2, April 2017 Volume. 5, No. 2, April 2017 Volume. 5, No. 1, January 2017 Volume. 5, No. 1, January 2017 Volume 4, No. 4, October 2016 Volume 4, No. 4, October 2016 Volume. 4, No.3, July 2016 Volume. 4, No.3, July 2016 Volume. 4, No. 2, April 2016 Volume. 4, No. 2, April 2016 Volume. 4, No. 1, January 2016 Volume. 4, No. 1, January 2016 Volume. 3, No. 4, October 2015 Volume. 3, No. 4, October 2015 Volume. 3, No. 3, July 2015 Volume. 3, No. 3, July 2015 Volume. 3, no. 2, April 2015 Volume. 3, no. 2, April 2015 Volume. 3, No. 1, January 2015 Volume. 3, No. 1, January 2015 Volume. 2, No. 4, October 2014 Volume. 2, No. 4, October 2014 Volume. 2, No. 3, July 2014 Volume. 2, No. 3, July 2014 Volume. 2, No. 2, April 2014 Volume. 2, No. 2, April 2014 Volume. 2, No. 1, January 2014 Volume. 2, No. 1, January 2014 Volume. 37, No. 2, April 2013 Volume. 37, No. 2, April 2013 Volume 37, No. 1, January 2013 Volume 37, No. 1, January 2013 Volume. 37, No. 1, January 2013 Volume. 1, No. 4, October 2013 Volume. 1, No. 4, October 2013 Volume. 1, No. 3, July 2013 Volume. 1, No. 3, July 2013 Volume. 36, No. 4, October 2012 Volume. 36, No. 4, October 2012 Volume. 36, No. 3, July 2012 Volume. 36, No. 3, July 2012 Volume. 36, No. 2, April 2012 Volume. 36, No. 2, April 2012 Volume. 36, No. 1, January 2012 Volume. 36, No. 1, January 2012 Volume. 35, No. 4, October 2011 Volume. 35, No. 4, October 2011 Volume. 35, No. 3, July 2011 Volume. 35, No. 3, July 2011 Volume. 35, No. 2, April 2011 Volume. 35, No. 2, April 2011 Volume. 35, No. 1, January 2011 Volume. 35, No. 1, January 2011 Volume. 34, No. 4, October 2010 Volume. 34, No. 4, October 2010 Volume. 34, No. 3, July 2010 Volume. 34, No. 3, July 2010 Volume. 34. No. 2, April 2010 Volume. 34. No. 2, April 2010 Volume. 34, No. 1, January 2010 Volume. 34, No. 1, January 2010 Volume. 33. No. 4, October 2009 Volume. 33. No. 4, October 2009 Volume. 33, No. 3, July 2009 Volume. 33, No. 3, July 2009 Volume. 33, No. 2, April 2009 Volume. 33, No. 2, April 2009 Volume. 33, No. 1, January 2009 Volume. 33, No. 1, January 2009 Volume. 32, No. 4, October 2008 Volume. 32, No. 4, October 2008 Volume. 32, No. 3, July 2008 Volume. 32, No. 3, July 2008 Volume. 32, No. 2, April 2008 Volume. 32, No. 2, April 2008 Volume. 32, No. 1, January 2008 Volume. 32, No. 1, January 2008 Volume. 31, No. 4, October 2007 Volume. 31, No. 4, October 2007 Volume. 31, No. 3, July 2007 Volume. 31, No. 3, July 2007 Volume. 31, No. 2, April 2007 Volume. 31, No. 2, April 2007 Volume. 31, No. 1, January 2007 Volume. 31, No. 1, January 2007 Volume. 30, No. 4, October 2006 Volume. 30, No. 4, October 2006 Volume. 30, No. 3, July 2006 Volume. 30, No. 3, July 2006 Volume. 30, No. 2, April 2006 Volume. 30, No. 2, April 2006 Volume. 30, No. 1, January 2006 Volume. 30, No. 1, January 2006 More Issue