Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

An Evaluation of the Applicability of the Risk of Malignancy Index for Adnexal Masses to Patients Seen at a Tertiary Hospital in Chandigarh, India

  • Original Article
  • Published:
The Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology of India Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Back ground

The discrimination between benign and malignant ovarian tumors is important considering to optimally plan for an appropriate surgical treatment.

Aims

To determine the applicability of risk of malignancy index (RMI 2) for triaging patients with adnexal masses seen at tertiary care hospital in India.

Subjects and Methods

A retrospective case note review of patients with adnexal masses admitted in Gynecology department was done. RMI 2 was calculated for each patient using ultrasound score, menopausal status, and CA-125 levels (U/ml), and the value of RMI was compared to the histological diagnosis. Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS version 17.0 by descriptive and inferential statistics. The p value ≤0.05 was considered significant.

Results

The Mean age and SD of hundred patients was 52.8 (10) years. Most of the patients were postmenopausal (68/100). A significant relationship of ovarian malignancy was found with increasing age, high ultrasound score, and high serum CA-125. The average value of CA-125 in benign and malignant ovarian tumor was 7.4 and 625, respectively. The RMI 2 at a cut-off value of 200 had a sensitivity of 96.7 %, specificity of 84 %, positive predictive value of 85.5 %, and negative predictive value of 67.7 %.

Conclusion

Our study confirms the applicability of RMI 2 >200 in diagnosing adnexal masses with high risk of malignancy. It can be easily introduced into clinical practice to facilitate the selection of the patients for surgery and also helpful in triaging patients to different treatment groups.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Murthy N, Shalini S, Suman G, et al. Changing trends in incidence of ovarian cancer—the Indian Scenario. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2006;10:1025–30.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Holschneider CH, Berek JS. Ovarian cancer: epidemiology, biology, and prognostic factors. Semin Surg Oncol. 2000;19:3–10.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Rossing MA, Wicklund KG, Cushing-Haugen KL, et al. Predictive value of symptoms for early detection of ovarian cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2010;102(4):222–9.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Leelahakorn S, Tangjitgamol S, Manusirivithaya S, et al. Comparison of ultrasound score, CA125, menopausal status, and risk of malignancy index in differentiating between benign and borderline or malignant ovarian tumors. J Med Assoc Thail. 2005;88:22–30.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Buys SS, Partridge E, Black A, et al. Effect of screening on ovarian cancer mortality: the prostate, lung, colorectal and ovarian (PLCO) cancer screening randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2011;305(22):2295–303.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Jacobs I, Oram D, Fairbanks J, et al. A risk of malignancy index incorporating CA 125, ultrasound and menopausal status for the accurate preoperative diagnosis of ovarian cancer. BJOG. 1990;97:922–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Tingulstad S, Hagen B, Skjeldestad FE, 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. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1996;103(8):826–31.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Yamamoto Y, Yamada R, Oguri H, et al. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Watcharada M, Pissamai Y. The risk of malignancy index (RMI) in diagnosis of ovarian malignancy. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2009;10:865–8.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Aslam N, Tailor A, Lawton F, et al. Prospective evaluation of three different models for the pre-operative diagnosis of ovarian cancer. BJOG. 2007;107:1347–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Bouzari Z, Yazdani S, Ahmadi MH, et al. Comparison of three malignancy risk indices and CA-125 in the preoperative evaluation of patients with pelvic masses. BMC Res Notes. 2011;4:206.

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. van de Laar R, IntHout J, Gorp VT, et al. External validation of three prognostic models for overall survival in patients with advanced-stage epithelial ovarian cancer. Br J Cancer. 2014;110:42–8.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Andersen ES, Knudsen A, Rix P, et al. Risk of malignancy index in the preoperative evaluation of patients with adnexal masses. Gynecol Oncol. 2003;90:109–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Obeidat B, Amarin Z, Latimer J, et al. Risk of malignancy index in the preoperative evaluation of pelvic masses. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 2004;85:255–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Ulusoy S, Akbayir O, Numanoglu C, et al. The risk of malignancy index in discrimination of adnexal masses. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 2007;96:186–91.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Berek JS. Berek & Novak’s Gynecology. 15th ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2012. p. 1359–65.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Sharma A, Apostolidou S, Burnell M, et al. Risk of epithelial ovarian cancer in asymptomatic women with ultrasound-detected ovarian masses: a prospective cohort study within the UK collaborative trial of ovarian cancer screening (UKCTOCS). Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2012;40(3):338–44.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Insin P, Prueksaritanond N. Evaluation of four Risk of malignancy indices (RMI) in the pre operative diagnosis of ovarian malignancy at Rajavithi Hospital. Thai J Obstet Gynaecol. 2013;21:163–75.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Gadducci A, Ferdeghini M, Prontera C, et al. The concomitant determination of different tumor markers in patients with epithelial ovarian cancer and benign ovarian masses: relevance for differential diagnosis. Gynecol Oncol. 1992;44:147–54.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Yazbek J, Aslam N, Tailor A, et al. A comparative study of the risk of malignancy index and the ovarian crescent sign for the diagnosis of invasive ovarian cancer. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2006;28:320–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Harry VN, Narayansingh GV, Parkin DE. The risk of malignancy index for ovarian tumors in Northeast Scotland-a population based study. Scott Med J. 2009;54(2):21–3.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Gadducci A, Cosio S, Capri A. Serum tumor markers in the management of ovarian, endometrial and cervical cancer. Biomed Pharmacother. 2004;58:24–38.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Clarke SE, Grimshaw R, Rittenberg P, et al. Risk of malignancy index in the evaluation of patients with adnexal masses. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2009;31(5):440–5.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Compliance with ethical requirements and Conflict of interest

All procedures followed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible committee on human experimentation (institutional and national) and with the Helsinki Declaration of 1975, as revised in 2008. Informed consent was obtained from all patients for being included in the study. Sunny Chopra, Richa Vaishya, and Jasbinder Kaur declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Biochemistry, Himalayan Institute of Medical Sciences (HIMS), Jolly Grant, Dehradun, Uttarakhand, India

    Sunny Chopra

  2. Department of Biochemistry, GNEC, New Delhi, India

    Richa Vaishya

  3. Department of Biochemistry, GMCH, Sector 32, Chandigarh, India

    Jasbinder Kaur

Authors
  1. Sunny Chopra
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Richa Vaishya
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jasbinder Kaur
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sunny Chopra.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Chopra, S., Vaishya, R. & Kaur, J. An Evaluation of the Applicability of the Risk of Malignancy Index for Adnexal Masses to Patients Seen at a Tertiary Hospital in Chandigarh, India. J Obstet Gynecol India 65, 405–410 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13224-014-0583-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13224-014-0583-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation