DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.18203/2320-1770.ijrcog20193782

Comparison of RMI 3 and RMI 4 in pre-operative evaluation of ovarian masses

Badugu Rao Bahadur, Gangadhara Rao Koneru, Prabha Devi Kodey, Jyothi Melam

Abstract


Background: To differentiate ovarian mass as benign or malignant could change clinical approach. Finding a screening and diagnostic method for ovarian cancer is challenging due to high mortality and insidious symptoms. Risk malignancy index (RMI) has the advantage of rapid and exact triage of patients with ovarian mass.

Methods: Prospective study carried for 2 years at NRI Medical College and General Hospital, Chinakakani, Mangalagiri, Andhra Pradesh, India. 79 patients with ovarian mass were investigated and risk malignancy index (RMI-3 and RMI-4) calculated. Final confirmation was done based on histopathological report. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value were calculated for RMI 3 and RMI 4 taking histopathology as control and comparison was done.

Results: (n=79); 50 (63.29%) cases were benign and 29 (36.70%) were malignant based on histopathology. RMI 4 is more sensitive (68.96%) than RMI 3 (62.06%), but RMI 3 is more specific (94%) than RMI 4 (92%).The positive predictive value of RMI-3 and RMI-4 were 85.71%  and 83.33% respectively. The negative predictive value for RMI-4 and RMI-3 were 83.63% and 81.03% respectively.

Conclusions: With increasing age, chance of malignancy increases. RMI 4 was more sensitive than RMI-3, however less specific than RMI 3 in differentiating benign and malignant tumors. The positive predictive value is slightly more for RMI 3, than RMI 4. Negative predictive value is slightly more for RMI 4, than RMI 3.

 


Keywords


CA-125, Ovarian Mass, Risk malignancy index, Ultrasonography

Full Text:

PDF

References


Ong C, Biswas A, Choolani M, Low JJH. Comparision of risk of malignancy indices in evaluating ovarian masses in a Southeast Asian Population. Singapore Med J. 2013:54(3):134-9.

Curtin JP. Management of the adnexal mass. Gynecol Oncol. 1994;55:42-6.

National Institutes of Health Consensus Development Conference Statement. Ovarian cancer: screening, treatment, and follow-up. Gynecol Oncol. 1994;55:4-14.

Davidson SA. Management of the Adnexal Mass. In: Gibbs RS, Karlan BY, Haney AF, Nygaard I, eds. Danforth’s Obstetrics and Gynecology. 10th Ed. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, a Wolters Kluwer business; 2008: 1061-1072

Siegel R, Ma J, Zou Z. Cancer Statistics. CA Cancer J Clin. 2014;64:9-29.

Su Z, Graybill WS, Zhu Y. Detection and monitoring of ovarian cancer. Clin Chim Acta. 2013;415:341-5.

Aggarwal P, Kehoe S. Serum tumour markers in gynaecological cancers. Maturitas. 2010;67:46-53.

Ozols RF, Rubin SC, Thomas GM. Epithelial ovarian cancer. In: Hoskins WJ, Perez CA, Young R, Barakat R, editors. Principles and practice of gynecologic oncology. 4th ed. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams and Wilkins; 2005;895-987.

Jacobs I, Oram D, Fairbanks J. A risk of malignancy 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. Evaluation of risk of malignancy index based on serum CA 125, ultrasound findings and menopausal status in the preoperative diagnosis of pelvic masses. Br J Obstet Gynecol. 1996;102:826-31.

Tingulstad S, Hagen B, Skjeldestad FE. The risk of malignancy index to evaluate potential ovarian cancers in local hospitals. Br J Obstet Gynecol. 1999;93:448-52.

Yamamoto Y, Yamada R, Oguri H. Comparison of four malignancy risk indices in the preoperative evaluation of patients with pelvic masses. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2009;144:163-7.

The role of the generalist obstetrician-gynaecologist in the early detection of ovarian cancer. ACOG Committee Opinion No. 280. American college of obstetricians and gynecologists. Obstet Gynecol. 2002;100:1413-6.

Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. Green-top Guideline No 34: Ovarian Cysts in Postmenopausal Women, October 2003. http://www.rcog.org.uk/en/guidelines-research-services/guidelines/gtg 34/.

NICE Clinical Guidelines. CG122. Ovarian cancer: the recognition and intial management of ovarian cancer. 2011.

Ashrafganggooei T, Rezaeezadeh M. Risk of malignancy index in preoperative evaluation of pelvic masses. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2011;12:1727-30.

Triage of Ovarian Masses, Andreas Obermair, Brisbane. Available at: www.Obermair.info.

Kumari N, Gupta V, Kumari R, Makhija A. Int J Reprod Contracept Obstet Gynecol. 2016;5(6):1857-61.

Yamamoto Y, Tsuchida A, Ushiwaka T, Nagai R, Matsumoto M, Komatsu J. Comparison of 4 risk-of-malignancy indexes in the preoperative evaluation of patients with pelvic masses: a prospective study. Clinical Ovarian Other Gynecol Cancer. 2015;7:8-12.

Insin P, Prueksaritanond N. Evaluation of four risks of malignancy indices (RMI) in the preoperative diagnosis of ovarian malignancy at rajavithi hospital. Thai J of Obstet Gynaecol. 2013;21(4):163-17.

Moolthiya W, Yuenyao P. The risk of malignancy index (RMI) in diagnosis of ovarian malignancy. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2009;10:865-68.

Morgante G, la Marca A, Ditto A. Comparison of two malignancy risk indices based on serum CA125, ultrasound score and menopausal status in the diagnosis of ovarian masses. Br J Obstet Gynecol. 1999;106:524-7.

Kulkarni KA, Premalatha TS, Acharya G. Evaluation of risk of malignancy index 4 (RMI 4) in the preoperative assessment of adnexal masses. J Evid Based Med Healthc. 2016;3(47):2332-6.

Enakpene CA, Omigbodun AO, Goecke TW. Preoperative evaluation and triage of women with suspicious adnexal masses using risk of malignancy index. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2009;35:131-8.

Ertas S, Vural F, Tufekci EC, Ertas AC, Kose G, Aka N. Predictive value of malignancy risk indices for ovarian masses in premenopausal and postmenopausal women. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2016;17(4):2177-83.

Ozbay PO, Ekinci T, Caltekin MD, Yilmaz HT, Temur M, Yilmaz O, et al. Comparative evaluation of the risk of malignancy index scoring systems (1- 4) used in differential diagnosis of adnexal masses. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2015;16(1):345-9.

Sayanesh A, Wynants L, Preisler J. Multicentre external validation of IOTA prediction models and RMI by operators with varied training. Br J Cancer. 2013;108:2448-54.

Yavuzcan A, Caglar M, Ozgu E. Should cutoff values of the risk of malignancy index be changed for evaluation of adnexal masses in Asian and Pacific populations? Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2013;14:5455-9.

Hakansson F, Hogdall EVS, Nedergaard L, Lundvall L, Engelholm SA, Pedersen AT, et al From the danish pelvic mass ovarian cancer study. Risk of malignancy index (RMI) used as a diagnostic tool in a tertiary centre for patients with a pelvic mass. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2012;91:496-502.

Bouzari Z, Yazdani S, Haji Ahmadi M, 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 Research Notes. 2011;4:206.

Geomini P, Kruitwagen R, Bremer GL. The accuracy of risk scores in predicting ovarian malignancy: a systematic review. Obstet Gynecol. 2009;113:384-94.

Jacobs I, Bast RC. The CA 125 tumor-associated antigen a review of the literature. Hum Reprod. 1989;4:1-12.

Drapkin R, vonHorsten HH, Lin Y, Mok SC, Crum CP, Welch WR, et al. Human epididymis protein 4 (HE4) is a secreted glycoprotein that is over expressed by serous and endometrioid ovarian carcinomas. Cancer Res. 2005;65:2162-9.

Moore RG, Jabre-Raughley M, Brown AK, Robison KM, Miller MC, Allard WJ, et al. Comparison of a novel multiple marker assay vs. the risk of malignancy index for the prediction of epithelial ovarian cancer in patients with a pelvic mass. Am J Obstet Gynaecol. 2010;203:228.e1-6.