The study of the correlation between international ovarian tumour analysis classification, risk of malignancy index and clinicopathological findings of adnexal masses
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18203/2320-1770.ijrcog20241075Keywords:
RMI, Adnexal masses, IOTA, Ovarian cancerAbstract
Background: Adnexal masses of ovarian origin are of growing concern these days due to high fatality associated with ovarian malignancy because they are diagnosed at advanced stage due to vague symptoms and absence of recommended screening tests. The present study aimed to assess the prediction potential of IOTA classification and RMI to clinicopathological findings of adnexal masses and calculate the sensitivity and specificity of same.
Methods: This was a prospective observational study carried out on 96 non pregnant women presenting with adnexal mass to gynaecology OPD of a tertiary care hospital from 2020 to 2022. They were evaluated preoperatively with complete history, examination, ultrasound, and tumor markers. IOTA score and RMI was calculated for all patients. Following surgery, histopathology results were compared with preoperative evaluation. Statistical Analysis was done.
Results: Mucinous cyst adenoma was the most common benign ovarian tumour, serous cystadenocarcinoma being the most common malignant ovarian tumour. Patients with malignancy were older and mostly postmenopausal. IOTA was found better than RMI with higher sensitivity 98.5% and high PPV 98.5%. Similarly, IOTA had higher specificity 91.7% and higher NPV 91.7% for identifying and prediction of benign patients.
Conclusions: IOTA guidelines to describe sonographic features of adnexal masses have shown a high sensitivity and specificity for prediction of malignancy in adnexal masses and is a more reliable diagnostic tool over RMI tool for differentiation between benign and malignant adnexal masses.
Metrics
References
Berek JS. Berek & Novak’s Gynecology. 15th ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2012:2337-457.
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists’ Committee on Practice Bulletins-Gynecology. Practice bulletin no 174: Evaluation and management of adnexal masses. Obstet Gynecol 2016;128:e210-26.
Yazbek J, Helmy S, Ben-Nagi J, Holland T, Sawyer E, Jurkovic D. Value of preoperative ultrasound examination in the selection of women with adnexal masses for laparoscopic surgery. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2007;30(6):883-8.
Heintz AP, Odicino F, Maisonneuve P, Beller U, Benedet JL, Creasman WT, et al. Carcinoma of the ovary. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2003;66:184-90.
Salat-Baroux J, Merviel P, Kuttenn F. Management of ovarian cysts. BMJ. 1996;313(7065):1098.
Meys EM, Kaijser J, Kruitwagen RF, Slangen BF, Van Calster B, Aertgeerts B, et al. Subjective assessment versus ultrasound models to diagnose ovarian cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Euro J Canc. 2016;58:17-29.
Van Calster B, Valentin L, Froyman W, Landolfo C, Ceusters J, Testa AC, et al. Validation of models to diagnose ovarian cancer in patients managed surgically or conservatively: multicentre cohort study. BMJ. 2020 ;370:1-12.
Westwood M, Ramaekers B, Lang S, Grimm S, Deshpande S, de Kock S, et al. Risk scores to guide referral decisions for people with suspected ovarian cancer in secondary care: A systematic review and cost-effectiveness analysis. Walth Technol Assess. 2018;22(44):1-264.
Chacón E, Dasí J, Caballero C, Alcázar JL. Risk of ovarian malignancy algorithm versus risk malignancy index-I for preoperative assessment of adnexal masses: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Gynecol Obst Investigat. 2019;84(6):591-8.
Timmerman D, Testa AC, Bourne T, Ameye L, Jurkovic D, Van Holsbeke C, et al. Simple ultrasound‐based rules for the diagnosis of ovarian cancer. J Int Soci Ultras Obstet Gynecol. 2008;31(6):681-90.
Timmerman D, Ameye L, Fischerova D, Epstein E, Melis GB, Guerriero S, et al. Simple ultrasound rules to distinguish between benign and malignant adnexal masses before surgery: prospective validation by IOTA group. Bmj. 2010;341:c6839.
Testa A, Kaijser J, Wynants L, Fischerova D, Van Holsbeke C, Franchi D, et al. Strategies to diagnose ovarian cancer: new evidence from phase 3 of the multicentre international IOTA study. Brit J Can. 2014;111(4):680-8.
Alcázar JL, Pascual MA, Olartecoechea B, Graupera B, Auba M, Ajossa S, et al. IOTA simple rules for discriminating between benign and malignant adnexal masses: prospective external validation. Ultras Obstet Gynecol. 2013;42(4):467-71.
Geomini P, Kruitwagen R, Bremer GL, Cnossen J, Mol BW. The accuracy of risk scores in predicting ovarian malignancy: a systematic review. Obstet Gynecol. 2009;113(2 Part 1):384-94.
Rai R, Bhutia PC, Tshomo U. Clinicopathological profile of adnexal masses presenting to a tertiary-care hospital in Bhutan. South Asian J Cancer. 2019;8(3):168-72.
Badkur P, Gupta K. Clinico-pathological correlation of adnexal masses in tertiary care centre. Med Sci. 2016;5(4):526-9.
Tuladhar AS, Pradhan S, Sharma J. Sonographic morphological features of ovarian tumours. Nepal Med Coll J. 2006;8(4):254-8.
Sharadha S, Sridevi TA, Renukadevi TK, Gowri R, Binayak D, Indra V. Ovarian masses: changing clinico histopathological trends. J Obstet Gynaecol India 2015;65:34-8.
Gurung P, Hirachand S, Pradhanang S. Histopathological study of ovarian cystic lesions in tertiary care hospital of Kathmandu, Nepal. J Inst Med 2013;35(3):44-7.
Berek JS. Berek & Novak’s Gynecology. 15th ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2012:2337-457.
Abbas AM, Zahran KM, Nasr A, Kamel HS. A new scoring model for characterization of adnexal masses based on two-dimensional gray-scale and colour Doppler sonographic features. Facts Views Vis Obgyn. 2014;6(2):68-74.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
