Evaluation of the validity of risk malignancy index in clinically diagnosed ovarian masses and to compare it with the validity of individual constituent parameter of risk malignancy index


  • Kanan Avinash Yelikar Department of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, GMC, Aurangabad, Maharashtra, India
  • Sonali Satish Deshpande Department of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, GMC, Aurangabad, Maharashtra, India
  • Sandip Sopan Nanaware Department of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, GMC, Aurangabad, Maharashtra, India
  • Sanjaykumar Bhaskarrao Pagare Department of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, GMC, Aurangabad, Maharashtra, India




USG, RMI, serum CA 125, Ovarian mass


Background: Pre-operative knowledge regarding the nature of ovarian mass is necessary in order to plan surgery.  Risk malignancy index (RMI) is a simple scoring system based on three factors serum CA 125, USG score & menopausal status. The RMI was interpreted as 1) score > 250 = high risk, 2) 25-250 =intermediate risk, 3) score <25 = low risk. The objective of the study was, 1) to evaluate risk malignancy index (RMI) in pre-operatively clinically diagnosed ovarian mass, 2) to compare the validity of individual parameter in RMI i.e. menopausal status, serum CA 125 & USG score with validity of RMI as a comprehensive index .

Methods: This was an observational study conducted at department of obstetrics and gynaecology, GMCH Aurangabad from October 2012 to 2014 with sample size of 102 cases with clinical diagnosis of ovarian mass admitted for laparotomy. The validity of RMI and validity of individual parameter was calculated and compared.

Results: RMI showed better sensitivity of 85.71%, specificity of 85.07% and ppv of 75%, npv of 91.93% and accuracy of 82.29% as compared to validity of individual parameters.

Conclusions: RMI is simple, valuable & highly reliable in pre-operative differentiation of malignant & benign lesion. Simplicity and applicability of this method in the primary evaluation of patients with pelvic masses makes it a good option in daily clinical gynaecological practice.



Spencer JA. A multidisciplinary approach to ovarian cancer at diagnosis. The British J Radiol. 2005;78(2005):S95-102.rmi 17.

Murthy NS, Shalini S, Suman G, Pruthvish S, Mathew A. Changing trends in incidence of ovarian cancer - the Indian scenario. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2009;10(6):1025-30.

Takiar R, Nadayil D, Nandakumar A. Projections of cancer cases in India (2010-2030) by cancer groups. Asian Pacific J Cancer Prev. 11:1045-104. rmi21.

Cruickshank DJ, Fullerton WT, Klcper A. The clinical significance of pre-operative serum CA-125 in ovarian cancer. Br J Obstet Gynecol. 1987;94:692-95.

Jacobs I, Oram D, Fairbanks J, Turner J, Crost C, Grudzinskas JG. A risk of malignancy index incorporating CA-125, ultrasound and menopausal status for the accurate pre-operative diagnosis of ovarian cancer. Br J Obstet Gynecol. 1990;97:922-92.

Zalel Y, Tepper R, Altaras M, Beyth Y. Transvaginal sonographic measurements of postmenopausal ovarian volumes as a possible detection of ovarian neoplasia. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 1996;75:668-71.

RCOG Guideline No. 34 October 2003, Reviewed 2010.

Hartge P, Hayes R, Reding D, Sherman ME, Prorok P, Schiffman M et al. Complex ovarian cysts in postmenopausal women are not associated with ovarian cancer risk factors: preliminary data from the prostate, lung, colon, and ovarian cancer screening trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2000;183:1232-7.

Barber HR, Graber EA. The PMPO syndrome (postmenopausal palpable ovary syndrome). Obstet Gynecol. 1971;38:921-3.

Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG). 2015;105(1).

ACOG Committee Opinion: number 280, December 2002. The role of the generalist obstetrician-gynecologist in the early detection of ovarian cancer. Obstet Gynecol. 2002;100:1413-6.

Tingulstad S, Hagen B, Skjeldestad FE, Onsrud M, Kiserud T, Halvorsen et al. Evaluation of risk of malignancy index based upon serum CA-125, ultrasound score and menopausal status in the pre-operative diagnosis of pelvis masses. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1996;103:826-31.

Bouzari Z, Yazdani S, Ahmadi MH, Barat S, Kelagar ZS, Kutenaie MJ et al. Comparison of three malignancy risk indices and CA-125 in the preoperative evaluation of patients with pelvic masses. BMC Res Notes. 2011;4:206.

Kestane I, Senol T, Kahramanoglu I, Kestane D. The use of risk of malignancy index for adnexal masses. Gynecol Obstet. 2014;4:226.

Kabawat SE, Bast RC, Welch WR, Knapp RC, Calvin RB. Immunopathologic characterization of a monoclonal antibody that recognizes common surface antigens of human ovarian tumours of serous, endometrioid and dear cell types. Am J Clin Pathol. 1983;79:98-104.

Tahereh A, Mahdieh R. Risk of malignancy index in preoperative evaluation of pelvic masses. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2011;12:1727-30.

Shuiqing Ma, Keng S, Jinglie LA. Risk of malignancy index in pre-operative diagnosis of ovarian cancer. Chin Med J. 2003;116(3):396-9.






Original Research Articles