Role of risk of malignancy index 4 in evaluation of adnexal masses


  • Amarjeet Kaur Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Govt. Medical College, Amritsar, Punjab, India
  • Sujata Sharma Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Govt. Medical College, Amritsar, Punjab, India
  • Sohan Singh Department of Radiodiagnosis and Imaging, Govt. Medical College, Amritsar, Punjab, India



Adnexal mass, CA 125, Risk of malignancy index-4, Ultrasound score


Background: The discrimination between benign and malignant adnexal masses is important for clinical management and surgical planning in such patients. Various combined methods of evaluation adnexal mass have also been proposed. Risk of malignancy index (RMI) is a combined parameter which is simple, preclinical and highly sensitive, and more specific. Risk of malignancy index 4 (RMI 4) is calculated as a product of ultrasound score (U)×menopausal score (M)×CA 125×tumor size. Objective of this study was to determine if the RMI (RMI 4) can distinguish between benign and malignant adnexal masses.

Methods: A prospective study was conducted on 30 women with an adnexal mass presenting in the OPD and emergency and RMI-4 calculated. Cut off level of 450 was set to differentiate between benign and malignant mass.

Results: In this study, the value of RMI-4 is less than 450 in 17 patients with benign disease and 3 patients with malignant disease. The value is more than 450 in 2 patients with benign disease and 8 patients with malignant disease. RMI-4 >450 had a sensitivity of 72.73% and specificity is 89.47%. The positive predictive value is 80% and negative predictive value is 85%. The p-value for RMI-4 in this study is 0.001 which is highly significant.

Conclusions: RMI is a reliable, simple, easy to use and cost-effective method in differentiating benign from malignant adnexal masses.

Author Biography

Amarjeet Kaur, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Govt. Medical College, Amritsar, Punjab, India

Amarjeet Kaur -   Senior Resident , Department of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, Govt. Medical College, Amritsar

Sujata Sharma - Professor & Head, Department of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, Govt. Medical College, Amritsar

Lt. Col. Sohan Singh - Professor & Head,Department of Radiodiagnosis & Imaging, Govt. Medical College, Amritsar.


ACOG practice bulletin. Management of adnexal masses. Obstet Gynecol. 2007;110:201-14.

Scully RE, Sobin LH. Histological typing of ovarian tumours. Springer Sci Business Media; 1999.

Taylor HC. Malignant and semi-malignant tumors of the ovary. Obstet Gynecol. 1929;48:204-30.

Gwinn ML, Lee NC, Rhodes PH, Layde PM, Rubin GL. Pregnancy, breast feeding, and oral contraceptives and the risk of epithelial ovarian cancer. J Clin Epidemiol. 1990;43:559-68.

Zorn KK, Tian C, McGuire WP, Hoskins WJ, Markman M, Muggia FM, et al. The prognostic value of pretreatment CA 125 in patients with advanced ovarian carcinoma. Cancer. 2009;115(5):1028-35.

Medeiros LR, Rosa DD, da Rosa MI, Bozzetti MC. Accuracy of CA 125 in the diagnosis of ovarian tumors: a quantitative systematic review. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2009;142:99-105.

Engelen MJ, de Bruijn HW, Hollema H, ten Hoor KA, Willemse PH, Aalders JG, et al. Serum CA 125, carcinoembryonic antigen and CA 19-9 as tumor markers in borderline ovarian tumors. Gynecol Oncol. 2000;78:16-20.

Meys EM, Kaijser J, Kruitwagen RF, Slangen BF, Van Calster B, Aertgeerts B, et al. Subjective assessment versus ultrasound models to diagnose ovarian cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. European J Cancer. 2016;58:17-29.

Van Calster B, Timmerman D, Bourne T, Testa AC, Van Holsbeke C, Domali E, et al. Discrimination between benign and malignant adnexal masses by specialist ultrasound examination versus serum CA-125. J National Cancer Inst. 2007;99(22):1706-14.

Chan L, Lin WM, Uerpairojkit B, Hartman D, Reece EA, Helm W. Evaluation of adnexal masses using three‐dimensional ultrasonographic technology: preliminary report. J Ultrasound Med. 1997;16(5):349-54.

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. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2009;144:163-7.

Javdekar R, Maitra N. Risk of malignancy index (RMI) in evaluation of adnexal mass. J Obstet Gynecol India. 2015;65(2):117-21.

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

Chen DX, Schwartz PE, Li XG, Yang Z. Evaluation of CA-125 levels in differentiating malignant from benign tumors in patients with pelvic masses. Obstet Gynecol. 1988;72:23-7.

Dora SK, Dandapat AB, Pande B, Hota JP. A prospective study to evaluate the risk malignancy index and its diagnostic implication in patients with suspected ovarian mass. J Ovarian Res. 2017;10(1):55.

Sassone AM, Timor-Tritsch IE, Artner A, Westhoff C, Warren WB. Transvaginal sonographic characterization of ovarian disease: evaluation of a new scoring system to predict ovarian malignancy. Obstet Gynecol. 1991;78(1):70-6.

Mohammed ABF, Ahuga VK, Taha M. Validation of the risk of malignancy index in primary evaluation of ovarian masses. Middle East Fertil Society J. 2014;19(4):324-8.

Alanbay İ, Akturk E, Coksuer H, Ercan M, Karaşahin E, Dede M, et al. Comparison of risk of malignancy index (RMI), CA 125, CA 19-9, ultrasound score, and menopausal status in borderline ovarian tumor. Gynecol Endocrinol. 2012;28(6):478-82.

Yenen MC, Alanbay I, Akturk E, Ercan CM, Coksuer H, Karaşahin E, et al. Comparison of risk of malignancy indices; RMI 1-4 in borderline ovarian tumor. European J Gynaecol Oncol. 2011;33(2):168-73.

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;16:345-9.






Original Research Articles