Evaluation of risk of malignancy index as a diagnostic tool in cases with adnexal mass
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18203/2320-1770.ijrcog20161677Keywords:
Risk malignancy index, Adnexal mass, Ovarian tumourAbstract
Background: Ovarian tumour usually presents as adnexal mass but often it is difficult to differentiate between benign and malignant tumour. Several diagnostic modalities such as sonography and tumours markers have been evaluated in the past, but none have been established as an ultimate diagnostic tool individually. The development of a mathematical formula using a logistic model, incorporating menopausal status, the serum level of a glycoprotein called CA-125 and USG score has been described in the form of different malignancy indices. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the various risks of malignancy indices (RMI 1, 2, 3, and 4) in the pre-operative evaluation of adnexal masses especially to differentiate between benign and malignant masses. Another objective of the present study was to compare the four RMI with each other in terms of various statistical parameters like specificity and sensitivity.
Methods: Women with adnexal masses who underwent surgical treatment were included in this study as histopathological examination was taken as gold standard to calculate the accuracy of RMI. The sensitivity, specificity and positive predictive value and negative predictive value of all the four RMI were calculated and data analyzed.
Results: A total of 65 patients were included in the study. RMI 1,2,3,4 was calculated according to their formula. Sensitivity of RMI- 1, 2, 3 and 4 was calculated to be 63.63%, 77.27%, 63.63% and 77.27% respectively. Specificity of RMI- 1, 2, 3 and 4 was calculated to be 69.04%, 64.28%, 64.28% and 62.79% respectively.
Conclusions: Risk of malignancy index is a good diagnostic tool to differentiate between benign and malignant pelvic masses. RMI- 2 and RMI-4 had maximum sensitivity while RMI-1 had maximum specificity. Overall RMI-2 appears to be the most accurate of all the four RMI.
References
Nandagudi S, Murthy SS, Suman G. Changing Trends in Incidence of Ovarian Cancer – the Indian Scenario. Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention. 2009:10:1025-30.
Jacobs I, Oram D, Fairbanks J, Turnes J, Frost C, Grudzinskas JG. A risk of malignancy index incorporating CA125, Ultrasound and menopausal status for the accurate preoperative diagnosis of ovarian cancer. Br J obstet Gynaecol. 1990:97:922-9.
Tingulstad S, Hagen B, Shjerdestad FE, Onsrud M, Kiserud T, Halorsen T, et al . Evaluation of a risk of Malignancy index based on serum CA 125, USG findings and menopausal status in the preoperative diagnosis of pelvic masses. Br J obstet Gynaecol. 1996:103:826-31
Yamamoto, Yamada R, Oguri H, Maeda N, Fukaya T. Comparison of four malignancy risk indices in the preoperative evaluation of patients with pelvic masses. Em J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2009;144:162-7.
Rossing MA, Wicklund KG, Cushing-Haugen KL. Predictive value of symptoms for early detection of ovarian cancer. J Natl CancerInst. 2010;102(4):222-9.
Javdekar R, Maitra N. Risk of Malignancy Index (RMI) in Evaluation of Adnexal mass. The Journal Obstetrics and Gynaecology of India. 2015;65(2):117-21.
Jung-woo Park MD, Jee-Hyun Park ESS. Four risk of malignancy indices in evaluation of pelvic masses. Korean J Obstet Gynacol. 2012:55(9):636-43.
