Published: 2019-03-26

Diagnostic value of risk malignancy index (RMI) for detection of malignancies in clinically diagnosed ovarian masses and to evaluate the validity of individual constituent parameter of risk malignancy index

Jenitha B., Subbiah M.


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 and 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 to evaluate risk malignancy index (RMI) in pre-operatively clinically diagnosed ovarian mass and to compare the validity of individual parameter in RMI i.e. menopausal status, serum CA 125 and USG score to differentiate the nature of clinically diagnosed ovarian masses as benign or malignant.

Methods: This was an observational study conducted in the Department of obstetrics and gynaecology, Trichy SRM Medical College and Research Centre, Trichy from January 2017 to January 2018 with a sample size of 77 cases with clinical diagnosis of ovarian mass admitted for surgery. The validity of RMI and validity of individual parameters were calculated and compared.

Results: A total of 77 patients with ovarian tumors were enrolled in this study. According to the histological examination of the surgical specimens of the 77 women, 27.3% (n=21) had malignant tumors and 67.7% (n=56) had benign disease. Most common benign tumour was serous cystadenoma and the most common malignant tumour was mucinous cystadenocarcinoma. Among 77 patients, 42.85% (n=33) were postmenopausal, 44.15% (n=34) had USG score of 4, 27.27% (n=21) had serum CA125 level >cut-off values and 27.27% (n=21) had RMI >250. In cases where RMI>250, 18 out of 21 were malignant. In cases where USG score was 4, 19 out of 34 were malignant. Of the cases where serum CA125 level was > cut-off values 16 out of 21 were found to be malignant. RMI showed better sensitivity of 85.71%, specificity of 94.64%, PPV of 85.71%, NPV of 94.64% and diagnostic accuracy of 92.20%.

Conclusions: RMI is highly valuable and reliable in differentiating benign and malignant ovarian lesions and facilitates selection of cases for conservative management and oncology referral.


Benign, CA125, Malignant, Oncology, RMI, USG

Full Text:



Gillis CR, Hole DJ, Still RM, Davis J, Kaye SB. Medical audit, cancer registration, and survival in ovarian cancer. Lancet. 1991;337:611-2.

Finkler NJ, Benacerraf B, Lavin PT, Wojciechowski C, Knapp RC. Comparison of serum CA-125, clinical impression, and ultrasound in the preoperative evaluation of ovarian masses. Obstet Gynecol. 1988;72:659-64.

Vasilev SA, Schlaerth JB, Campeau J, Morrow CP. Serum CA-125 levels in preoperative evaluation of pelvic masses. Obstet Gynecol. 1988;71:751-6.

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 Gynecol. 1990;97:922-9.

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;103:826-31.

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;93:448-52.

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.

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

Aktürk E, Karaca RE, Alanbay İ, Dede M, Karaşahin E, Yenen MC, et al. Comparison of four malignancy risk indices in the detection of malignant ovarian masses. J Gynecol Oncol. 2011;22(3):177-82.

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. Europ J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2009;144(2):163-7.

Hartman CA, Juliato CR, Sarian LO, Toledo MC, Jales RM, Morais SS, et al. Ultrasound criteria and CA 125 as predictive variables of ovarian cancer in women with adnexal tumors. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2012;40(3):360-6.

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.

Anton C, Carvalho FM, Oliveira EI, Maciel GAR, Baracat EC, Carvalho JP. A comparison of CA125, HE4, risk ovarian malignancy algorithm (ROMA), and risk malignancy index (RMI) for the classification of ovarian masses. Clinics. 2012;67(5):437-41.

Karimi-Zarchi M, Mojaver SP, Rouhi M, Hekmatimoghaddam SH, Moghaddam RN, Yazdian-Anari P, et al. Diagnostic value of the risk of malignancy index (RMI) for detection of pelvic malignancies compared with pathology. Electronic Physic. 2015;7(7):1505.

Varras M. Benefits and limitations of ultrasonographic evaluation of uterine adnexal lesions in early detection of ovarian cancer. Clin Exp Obstet Gynecol. 2003;31(2):85-98.

Yelikar KA, Deshpande SS, Nanaware SS, Pagare SB. 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. Int J Reprod Contracept Obstet Gynecol. 2016;5(2):460-4.