Comparison of 4 Risk-of-Malignancy Indexes in the Preoperative Evaluation of Patients With Pelvic Masses: A Prospective Study

Abstract Background The aim of this study was to validate the risk-of-malignancy index (RMI) incorporating menopausal status, serum CA 125 levels, and imaging findings for discriminating benign from malignant pelvic masses and to evaluate the ability of 4 different RMIs. Patients and Methods This is a prospective study of 296 women admitted to the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology of Kochi Health Sciences Center, between September 2011 and April 2014, for surgical exploration of pelvic masses. The RMI 1, 2, 3, and 4 methods were calculated for all patients together with the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value. Results The sensitivity of RMIs 1, 2, 3, and 4 was 73.0%, 81.1%, 73.0%, and 77.0%, respectively, and the specificity was 93.7%, 89.6%, 93.7%, and 92.3%, respectively. The RMI 2 was significantly better at predicting malignancy than RMIs 1 3; however, there was no statistically significant difference in performance of RMIs 2 4. Conclusion The RMI method is a valuable and applicable method in diagnosing pelvic masses with high risk of malignancy and a simple technique that can be used in gynecology clinics and less-specialized centers.

[1]  S. Kehoe,et al.  The influence of the operating surgeon's specialisation on patient survival in ovarian carcinoma. , 1994, British Journal of Cancer.

[2]  G. Morgante,et al.  Comparison of two malignancy risk indices based on serum CA125, ultrasound score and menopausal status in the diagnosis of ovarian masses , 1999, British journal of obstetrics and gynaecology.

[3]  S. Kaye,et al.  Medical audit, cancer registration, and survival in ovarian cancer , 1991, The Lancet.

[4]  T. Fukaya,et al.  Comparison of four malignancy risk indices in the preoperative evaluation of patients with pelvic masses. , 2009, European journal of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive biology.

[5]  K Sujatha,et al.  Comparison of three risk of malignancy indices in evaluation of pelvic masses. , 2001, Gynecologic oncology.

[6]  P. Lavin,et al.  Comparison of Serum CA 125, Clinical Impression, and Ultrasound in the Preoperative Evaluation of Ovarian Masses , 1988, Obstetrics and gynecology.

[7]  N. Spirtos,et al.  The impact of subspecialty training on the management of advanced ovarian cancer. , 1992, Gynecologic oncology.

[8]  S. Nahar,et al.  The adnexal mass: Benign or malignant? Evaluation of risk of malignancy index , 2016 .

[9]  Tore Halvorsen,et al.  Evaluation of a risk of malignancy index based on serum CA125, ultrasound findings and menopausal status in the pre‐operative diagnosis of pelvic masses , 1996, British journal of obstetrics and gynaecology.

[10]  K. Nustad,et al.  The risk-of-malignancy index to evaluate potential ovarian cancers in local hospitals. , 1999, Obstetrics and gynecology.

[11]  D. Oram,et al.  A risk of malignancy index incorporating CA 125, ultrasound and menopausal status for the accurate preoperative diagnosis of ovarian cancer , 1991, British journal of obstetrics and gynaecology.

[12]  D. Oram,et al.  The adnexal mass: benign or malignant? Evaluation of a risk of malignancy index , 1993 .

[13]  E. S. Andersen,et al.  Risk of malignancy index in the preoperative evaluation of patients with adnexal masses. , 2003, Gynecologic oncology.

[14]  S. Ulusoy,et al.  The risk of malignancy index in discrimination of adnexal masses , 2007, International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics.

[15]  J. Schlaerth,et al.  Serum CA 125 Levels in Preoperative Evaluation of Pelvic Masses , 1988, Obstetrics and gynecology.

[16]  R. Crawford,et al.  Risk of malignancy index in the preoperative evaluation of pelvic masses , 2004, International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics.