Diagnostic accuracy of the risk of malignancy index 1 compared to the more recent IOTA ADNEX model in discriminating benign from malignant adnexal masses: a multi-centric study

Amita Ray, Divya S., B. N. Kumar Guru, A. S. Ramaswamy, Bharat Kumar


Background: Identification of the nature of an adnexal mass can ensure optimum management. Single parameters as well as diagnostic models using a combination of several parameters are in use. The International Ovarian Tumor Analysis (IOTA) consortium has developed and published the Assessment of Different NEoplasias in the adneXa (ADNEX) model, which differentiates between benign and malignant masses. Authors conducted this study with the aim of finding a cut off value for this model in the study population and comparing the diagnostic accuracy of this model to that of the risk of malignancy (RMI).

Methods: Women with adnexal masses admitted to the 3 medical college affiliated hospitals for surgical management were included in this study. Appropriate investigations were done to calculate the RMI-I and ADNEX score for each participant. A cut off score for the ADNEX model was determined and diagnostic accuracy tests were done for comparison.

Results: At a cut-off of 29 for the ADNEX model and 200 for RMI model the sensitivity was 75% and 77.8, specificity 100% and 80.6%; Positive Predictive Value (PPV) 100%and 60%; Negative Predictive Value (NPV) 91% and 90.6%; Positive Likelihood ratio of infinity and 4 and a negative Likelihood Ratio of 2.8 and 2.5 respectively.

Conclusions: The ADNEX model rates higher than the RMI in almost all tests of diagnostic accuracy and can be used for triaging, framing a referral policy and prioritizing surgery.


Adnexal mass, IOTA ADNEX model, Risk of Malignancy Index (RMI), Tests of diagnostic accuracy

Full Text:



Gillis C, Hole D, Still RM, Davis J, Kaye SB. Medical audit, cancer registration, and survival in ovarian cancer. The Lancet. 1991;337(8741):611-2.

Eisenkop SM, Spirtos NM, Montag TW, Nalick RH, Wang HJ. The impact of subspecialty training on the management of advanced ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 1992;47(2):203-9.

Kehoe S, Powell J, Wilson S, Woodman C. The influence of the operating surgeon's specialisation on patient survival in ovarian carcinoma. Brit J Cancer. 1994;70(5):1014.

Goff BA, Mandel LS, Drescher CW, Urban N, Gough S, Schurman KM, et al. Development of an ovarian cancer symptom index: Possibilities for earlier detection. Cancer. 2007;109(2):221-7.

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 ObstetGynaecol 1990;97:922-9.

Irwig L, Bossuyt P, Glasziou P, Gatsonis C, Lijmer J. Designing studies to ensure that estimates of test accuracy are transferable. BMJ. 2002;324(7338):669-71.

Raslich MA. Markert RJ, Stutes SA. Selecting and interpreting diagnostic tests. Biochemia Medica. 2007;17(2):139-270.

Bossuyt PM, Reitsma JB, Bruns DE, Gatsonis CA, Glasziou PP, Irwig LM, et al. The STARD statement for reporting studies of diagnostic accuracy: explanation and elaboration. Clin Chem 2003;49(5):7-18.

Wilczynski NL. Quality of reporting of diagnostic accuracy studies: no change since STARD statement publication--before-and-after study. Radiol. 2008;248(3):817-23.

Obeidat B, Amarin Z, Latimer J, Crawford R. Risk of malignancy index in the preoperative evaluation of pelvic masses. Int J Gynecol Obstetrics. 2004;85(3):255-8.

Yamamoto Y, Yamada R, Oguri H, Maeda N, Fukaya T. Comparison of four malignancy risk indices in the preoperative evaluation of patients with pelvic masses. Europe J Obstet Gynecol Reproduct Biol. 2009;144(2):163-7,

Van den Akker PA, Aalders AL, Snijders MP, Kluivers KB, Samlal RA, Vollebergh JH, et al. Evaluation of the risk of malignancy index in daily clinical management of adnexal masses. Gynecologic oncology. 2010;116(3):384-8.

Manjunath A, Sujatha K, Vani R. Comparison of three risk of malignancy indices in evaluation of pelvic masses. Gynecol Oncol. 2001;81(2):225-9.