A prospective cross-sectional observational study to compare the predictive performance of four types of risk malignancy index and computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging findings in the triage of adnexal masses at a tertiary care centre in Mumbai, India
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18203/2320-1770.ijrcog20254283Keywords:
Risk of malignancy index, CA-125, Adnexal mass, CT, MRI, Ovarian tumourAbstract
Background: Accurate pre-operative differentiation between benign and malignant adnexal masses is essential for appropriate referral and management.
Methods: A prospective cross-sectional observational study was conducted from August 2023 to July 2024 in the Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Topiwala National Medical College and BYL Nair Charitable Hospital, Mumbai. Sixty women with adnexal masses were evaluated using clinical parameters, ultrasound, CA-125, and four types of risk of malignancy indices (RMI I-IV). Computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging (CT/MRI) findings were compared wherever available. Histopathology served as the gold standard.
Results: Mean age 37.4±10.4 years. Of 60 cases, 45 (75%) benign, 15 (25%) malignant. RMI IV had highest diagnostic accuracy area under the curve (AUC=0.892). CT showed 100% sensitivity and 94.4% specificity.
Conclusions: RMI IV is the most reliable index for differentiating benign and malignant adnexal masses. CT provides additional diagnostic accuracy and is recommended for equivocal cases.
References
Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL, Laversanne M, Soerjomataram I, Jemal A, Bray F. Global Cancer Statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN Estimates of Incidence and Mortality Worldwide for 36 Cancers in 185 Countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2021;71(3):209-49.
National Cancer Registry Programme (ICMR). Consolidated Report of Population Based Cancer Registries 2012-2016. Bangalore: Indian Council of Medical Research. 2020.
Jacobs I, Oram D, Fairbanks J, Turner J, Frost C, Grudzinskas JG. A risk of malignancy index incorporating CA 125, ultrasound and menopausal status for the accurate preoperative diagnosis of ovarian cancer. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1990;97(10):922-9.
Tingulstad S, Hagen B, Skjeldestad FE, Onsrud M, Kiserud T, Halvorsen T, et al. Evaluation of a risk of malignancy index based on serum CA 125, ultrasound findings and menopausal status in the pre-operative diagnosis of pelvic masses. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1996;103(8):826-31.
Tingulstad S, Hagen B, Skjeldestad FE, Halvorsen T, Nustad K, Onsrud M. The risk-of-malignancy index to evaluate potential ovarian cancers in local hospitals. Obstet Gynecol. 1999;93(3):448-52.
Yamamoto Y, Yamashita Y, Miyazaki K. Comparison of four malignancy risk indices in the preoperative evaluation of patients with pelvic masses. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2009;144(2):163-7.
Jacobs IJ, Menon U. Progress and challenges in screening for early detection of ovarian cancer. Mol Cell Proteomics. 2004;3(4):355-66.
Saha M, Gupta S, Dey R, Samanta B, Chatterjee T. Evaluation of risk of malignancy indices in preoperative assessment of adnexal masses. J Obstet Gynaecol India. 2019;69(1):64-70.
Tailor A, Timmerman D, Bourne TH, Campbell S, Okaro E, Collins WP. A comparison of subjective assessment and the risk of malignancy index in the preoperative evaluation of ovarian masses. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2000;15(4):355-9.
Kinkel K, Lu Y, Meuli RA, Sick P, Hricak H. Accuracy of imaging techniques in the diagnosis of ovarian cancer: a meta-analysis. Lancet Oncol. 2005;6(8):557-65.
Thomassin-Naggara I, Balvay D, Cuenod CA, Rouzier R, Callard P, Bazot M, et al. Dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging: a useful tool for characterizing ovarian epithelial tumors. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2008;28(1):111-20.
Sharma A, Choudhary S, Kumari R, Singh P. Comparative evaluation of risk of malignancy indices and CA 125 in differentiation of adnexal masses. Int J Reprod Contracept Obstet Gynecol. 2017;6(5):1984-90.
Mehra S, Singh S, Raghunandan C. Risk of malignancy index in evaluation of ovarian masses in tertiary care hospitals in India. Int J Reprod Contracept Obstet Gynecol. 2020;9(3):1087-92.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
