Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.7314/APJCP.2015.16.1.345

Comparative Evaluation of the Risk of Malignancy Index Scoring Systems (1-4) Used in Differential Diagnosis of Adnexal Masses  

Ozbay, Pelin Ozun (Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Aydin Obstetrics and Pediatrics Hospital)
Ekinci, Tekin (Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Malatya State Hospital)
Caltekin, Melike Demir (Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Malatya State Hospital)
Yilmaz, Hasan Taylan (Department of Radiation Oncology, Onkomer Oncology and Medical Center, Ataturk Training and Research Hospital)
Temur, Muzaffer (Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Manisa Merkezefendi State Hospital)
Yilmaz, Ozgur (Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Manisa Merkezefendi State Hospital)
Uysal, Selda (Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Manisa Merkezefendi State Hospital)
Demirel, Emine (Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Ataturk Training and Research Hospital)
Kelekci, Sefa (Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Ataturk Training and Research Hospital)
Publication Information
Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention / v.16, no.1, 2015 , pp. 345-349 More about this Journal
Abstract
Background: To determine the cut-off values of the preoperative risk of malignancy index (RMI) used in differentiating benign or malignant adnexal masses and to determine their significance in differential diagnosis by comparison of different systems. Materials and Methods: 191 operated women were assessed retrospectively. RMI of 1, 2, 3 and 4; cut-off values for an effective benign or malignant differentiation together with sensitivity, specificity, negative and positive predictive values were calculated. Results: Cut-off value for RMI 1 was found to be 250; there was significant (p<0.001) compatibility at this level with sensitivity of 60%, positive predictive value (PPV) of 75%, specificity of 93%, negative predictive value (NPV) of 88% and an overall compliance rate of 85%. When RMI 2 and 3 was obtained with a cut-off value of 200, there was significant (p<0.001) compatibility at this level for RMI 2 with sensitivity of 67%, PPV of 67%, specificity of 89%, NPV of 89%, histopathologic correlation of 84% while RMI 3 had significant (p<0.001) compatibility at the same level with sensitivity of 63%, PPV of 69%, specificity of 91%, NPV of 88% and a histopathologic correlation of 84%. Significant (p<0.001) compatibility for RMI 4 with a sensitivity of 67%, PPV of 73%, specificity of 92%, NPV of 89% and a histopathologic correlation of 86% was obtained at the cut-off level 400. Conclusions: RMI have a significant predictability in differentiating benign and malignant adnexal masses, thus can effectively be used in clinical practice.
Keywords
Risk of malignancy index; adnexal mass; differential diagnosis;
Citations & Related Records
Times Cited By KSCI : 2  (Citation Analysis)
연도 인용수 순위
1 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
2 Ashrafgangooei T, Rezaeezadeh M (2011). Risk of malignancy index in preoperative evaluation of pelvic masses. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, 12, 1727-30.
3 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
4 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
5 Chia YN, Marsden DE, Robertson G, Hacker NF (2008). Triage of ovarian masses. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol, 48, 322-8.   DOI
6 Davies AP, Jacobs IJ, Woolas R, Fish A, Oram D (1993). The adnexal mass: benign or malignant? Evaluation of a risk ofmalignancy index. Br J Obstet Gynaecol, 100, 927-31.   DOI
7 Ekerhovd E, Wienerroith H, Staudach A, Granberg S (2001). Preoperative assessment of unilocular adnexal cysts by transvaginal ultrasonography: a comparison between ultrasonographic morphologic imagingand histopathologic diagnosis. Am J Obstet Gynecol, 18, 48-54.
8 Engelen MJ, Kos HE, Willemse PH, et al (2006). Surgery by consultant gynecologic oncologists improves survival in patients with ovarian carcinoma. Cancer, 106, 589-98.   DOI
9 Finkler NJ, Benacerraf B, Lavin PT, Wojciechowski C, Knapp RC (1988). Comparison of serum CA125, clinical impressionand ultrasound in the preoperative evaluation of ovarian masses. Obstet Gynecol, 72, 659-64.
10 Fiorca JV, Roberts WS (1996). Screening for ovarian cancer. Cancer Control, 3, 120-9.
11 Geomini P, Kruitwagen R, Bremer G, Cnossen J, Mol B (2009). The accuracy of risk scores in predicting ovarian malignancy: a systematic review. Obstet Gynecol, 113, 384-94.   DOI   ScienceOn
12 Iyer VR, Lee SI (2010). MRI, CT, and PET/CT for ovarian cancer detection and adnexal lesion characterization. AJR Am J Roentgenol, 194, 311-21.   DOI
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 Landis SH, Murray T, Bolden 5, Wingo PA (1999). Cancer statistics. CA Cancer J Clin, 49, 8-31.   DOI
15 Ma S, Shen K, Lang J. (2003). A risk of malignancy index in preoperative diagnosis of ovarian cancer. Chin Med J (Engl), 116, 396-9.
16 Manjunath AP, Pratapkumar, Sujatha K, Vani R (2001). Comparison of three risk of malignancy indices in evaluation of pelvic masses. Gynecol Oncol, 81, 225-9.   DOI
17 Meray O, Turkcuoglu I, Meydanli MM, Kafkasli A (2010). Risk of malignancy index is not sensitive in detecting nonepithelial ovarian cancer and borderline ovarian tumor. J Turkish German Gynecol Assoc, 11, 22-6.
18 Obeidat BR, Amarin ZO, Latimer JA, Crawford RA (2004). Risk of malignancy index in the preoperative evaluation of pelvic masses. Int J Gynaecol Obstet, 85, 255-8.   DOI
19 Osmers RG, Osmers M, von Maydell B, Wagner B, Kuhn W (1998). Evaluation of ovarian tumors in postmenopausal women by transvaginal sonography. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol, 77, 81-8.   DOI
20 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.
21 Rossi A, Braghin C, Soldano F, Isola M, et al (2011). A proposal for a new scoring system to evaluate pelvic masses: Pelvic Masses Score (PMS). Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol, 157, 84-8.   DOI
22 Tanriverdi HA, Sade H, Akbulut V, Barut A, Bayar U (2007). Clinical and ultrasonographic evaluation of pelvic masses. J Turkish-German Gynecol Assoc, 8, 67-70.
23 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
24 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
25 Valentin L (2004). Use of morphology to characterize and manage common adnexal masses. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol, 18, 71-89.   DOI
26 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
27 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
28 Yavuzcan A, Caglar M, Ozgu E, et al (2013). 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, 14, 5455-9.   DOI   ScienceOn
29 Yavuzcan A, Baloglu A, Cetinkaya B (2009). The investigation of the factors affecting retroperitoneal lymph node metastasis in stage IIIC and IV epithelial ovarian cancer. Arch Gynecol Obstet, 280, 939-44.   DOI