Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.7314/APJCP.2013.14.9.5455

Should Cut-Off Values of the Risk of Malignancy Index be Changed for Evaluation of Adnexal Masses in Asian and Pacific Populations?  

Yavuzcan, Ali (Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Duzce University Faculty of Medicine)
Caglar, Mete (Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Duzce University Faculty of Medicine)
Ozgu, Emre (Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Zekai Tahir Burak Women's Health Education and Research Hospital)
Ustun, Yusuf (Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Duzce University Faculty of Medicine)
Dilbaz, Serdar (Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Duzce University Faculty of Medicine)
Ozdemir, Ismail (Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Medicana International Istanbul Hospital)
Yildiz, Elif (Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Duzce University Faculty of Medicine)
Gungor, Tayfun (Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Zekai Tahir Burak Women's Health Education and Research Hospital)
Kumru, Selahattin (Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Duzce University Faculty of Medicine)
Publication Information
Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention / v.14, no.9, 2013 , pp. 5455-5459 More about this Journal
Abstract
Background: The risk of malignancy index (RMI) for the evaluation of adnexal masses is a sensitive tool in certain populations. The best cut off value for RMI 1, 2 and 3 is 200. The cut off value of RMI-4 to differentiate benign from malignant lesions is 450. Our aim was to evaluate the efficiency of four different malignancy indexes (RMI1-4) in a homogeneous population. Materials and Methods: We evaluated a total of 153 non-pregnant women with adnexal masses who did not have a history of malignancy and who were above 18 years of age. Results: A cut-off value of 250 for RMI-1 provided 95.9% inter-observer agreement, yielding 95.9% specificity, 93.5% negative predictive value, 75.0% sensitivity and 82.8% positive predictive value. A cut-off value of 250 for RMI-1 showed high performance in preoperative diagnosis of invasive malignant lesions than cut-off value of 200 in our population. A cut-off value of 350 for RMI-2 provided 94.5% inter-observed agreement, yielding 94.2% specificity, 93.4% negative predictive value, 75.0% sensitivity and 77.4% positive predictive value. RMI-2 showed the higher performance when the cut-off value was set at 350 in our population. A cut-off value of 250 provided 95.2% inter-observer agreement, yielding 95.0% specificity, 93.2% negative predictive value, 75.0% sensitivity, and 88.0% positive predictive value. RMI-3 showed the highest performance to diagnose malignant adnexal masses when the cut-off value was set at 250. In our study, RMI-4 showed similar statistical performance when the cut-off value was set at 400 [(Kappa: 0.684/p=0.000), yielding 93.8% inter-observer agreement, 93.4% specificity, 93.4% negative predictive value, 75.0% sensitivity, and 75.0% negative predictive value]. Conclusions: We showed successful utilization of RMIs in preoperative differentiation of benign from malignant masses. Many studies conducted in Asian and Pacific countries have reported different cut-off values as was the case in our study. We think that it is difficult to determine universally accepted cut-off values for RMIs for common use around the globe.
Keywords
Adnexal mass; ovarian cancer; risk of malignancy index;
Citations & Related Records
Times Cited By KSCI : 3  (Citation Analysis)
연도 인용수 순위
1 Ashrafgangooei T, Rezaeezadeh M (2011). Risk of malignancy index in preoperative evaluation of pelvic masses. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, 12, 1727-30.
2 Akturk E, Karaca RE, Alanbay I, et al (2011). Comparison of four malignancy risk indices in the detection of malignant ovarian masses. J Gynecol Oncol, 22, 177-82.   DOI   ScienceOn
3 Alcazar JL, Pascual MA, Olartecoechea B, et al (2013). IOTA simple rules for discriminating between benign and malignant adnexal masses: a prospective external validation. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol, 42, 467-71.
4 Andersen ES, Knudsen A, Rix P, Johansen B (2003). Risk of malignancy index in the preoperative evaluation of patients with adnexal masses. Gynecol Oncol, 90, 109-12.   DOI   ScienceOn
5 Bailey J, Tailor A, Naik R, et al (2006). Risk of malignancy index for referral of ovarian cancer cases to a tertiary center: does it identify the correct cases? Int J Gynecol Cancer, 16, 30-4.   DOI   ScienceOn
6 Benedet JL, Bender H, Jones H 3rd, Ngan HY, Pecorelli S (2000). FIGO staging classifications and clinical practice guidelines in the management of gynecologic cancers. FIGO committee on gynecologic oncology. Int J Gynaecol Obstet, 70, 209-62.   DOI   ScienceOn
7 Benjapibal M, Neungton C (2007). Pre-operative prediction of serum CA 125 level in women with ovarian masses. J MedAssoc Thai, 90, 1986-91.
8 Bouzari Z, Yazdani S, Ahmadi MH, et al (2011). Comparison of three malignancy risk indices and CA-125 in the preoperative evaluation of patients with pelvic masses. BMC Res Notes, 4, 206.   DOI   ScienceOn
9 Cure MC, Cure E, Kirbas A, Yazici T, Yuce S (2012). Requests for tumor marker tests in Turkey without indications and frequency of elevation in benign conditions. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, 13, 6485-9.   DOI   ScienceOn
10 Harlan LC, Clegg LX, Trimble EL (2003). Trends in surgery and chemotherapy for women diagnosed with ovarian cancer in the United States. J Clin Oncol, 21, 3488-94.   DOI   ScienceOn
11 Dehaghani AS, Ghiam AF, Hosseini M, Mansouri S, Ghaderi A (2007). Factors influencing serum concentration of CA125 and CA15-3 in Iranian healthy postmenopausal women. Pathol Oncol Res, 13, 360-4.   DOI
12 Gultekin M, Dursun P, Dogan NU, et al (2009). Debulking surgery for incompletely operated advanced epithelial ovarian carcinoma. J Surg Oncol, 100, 258-60.   DOI   ScienceOn
13 Jacobs I, Oram D, Fairbanks J, et al (1990) A risk of malignancy index incorporating CA 125, ultrasound and menopausal status for the accurate preoperative diagnosis of ovarian cancer. Br J Obstet Gynaecol, 97, 922-9.   DOI
14 Khattak YJ, Hafeez S, Alam T, et al (2013). Ovarian masses: is multi-detector computed tomography a reliable imaging modality? Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, 14, 2627-30.   DOI   ScienceOn
15 Lou HY, Meng H, Zhu QL, Zhang Q, Jiang YX (2010). Application values of four risk of malignancy indices in the preoperative evaluation of patients with adnexal masses. Zhongguo Yi Xue Ke Xue Yuan Xue Bao, 32, 297-302.
16 Moolthiya W, Yuenyao P (2009). The risk of malignancy index (RMI) in diagnosis of ovarian malignancy. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, 10, 865-8.
17 Tingulstad S, Hagen B, Skjeldestad FE, et al (1996). Evaluation of a risk of malignancy index based on serum CA125, ultrasound findings and menopausal status in the preoperative diagnosis of pelvic masses. Br J Obstet Gynaecol, 103, 826-31.   DOI
18 Ong C, Biswas A, Choolani M, Low JJ (2013). Comparison of risk of malignancy indices in evaluating ovarian masses in a Southeast Asian population. Singapore Med J, 54, 136-9.
19 Yamamoto Y, Yamada R, Oguri H, Maeda N, Fukaya T (2009). Comparison of four malignancy risk indices in the preoperative evaluation of patients with pelvic masses. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol, 144, 163-7.   DOI   ScienceOn
20 Tingulstad S, Hagen B, Skjeldestad FE, et al (1999). The riskof- malignancy index to evaluate potential ovarian cancers in local hospitals. Obstet Gynecol, 93, 448-52.   DOI   ScienceOn
21 van den Akker PA, Zusterzeel PL, Aalders AL, et al (2011). External validation of the adapted risk of malignancy index incorporating tumor size in the preoperative evaluation of adnexal masses. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol, 159, 422-5.   DOI   ScienceOn
22 Zalel Y, Tepper R, Altaras M, et al (1996). Transvaginal sonographic measurements of postmenopausal ovarian volumes as a possible detection of ovarian neoplasia. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand, 75, 668-71.   DOI   ScienceOn
23 Hafeez S, Sufian S, Beg M, et al (2013). Role of ultrasound in characterization of ovarian masses. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, 14, 603-6.   DOI   ScienceOn