Diagnostic Value of the Risk of Malignancy Index (RMI) for Detection of Pelvic Malignancies Compared with Pathology
Keywords:
Pelvic mass, malignancy, CA125, risk, ultrasound, imagingAbstract
Introduction: Pelvic masses are among most the common causes of patient admission into gynecology clinics and one of the most common reasons for referral to gynecologic oncology departments due to the risk of uterine or ovarian malignancies. The aim of this study is to compare the four indices of the risk of malignancy index (RMI 1-4), as a combination of menstrual status, radiological findings, and serum CA125 concentration, for discrimination of benign from malignant pelvic masses.
Methods: This retrospective descriptive and analytic study was conducted on 200 patients with pelvic mass, post-surgery, and who were referred to the oncology department in Shahid Sadoughi hospital of Yazd (Iran) between June 2007 and September 2011. Data regarding demographics, pathology reports, paraclinical and clinical tests were analyzed. The four RMI indices were separately used for determination of benign vs. malignant masses using the optimized cutoff points, ROC curve, sensitivity, specificity, predictive value of positive and negative, and accuracy. Finally, p value for each index was calculated, and a final discrimination power was measured by using SPSS version 17 software.
Results: The calculated p values in the four RMI indices in ultrasound findings indicated statistical significance, and the RMI 2 showed the highest level of accuracy or diagnostic performance. RMI 2 had a cutoff point of 90, an under-chart area 86.7, 79.36% sensitivity, 78.95% specificity, 58.44%, positive predictive value, 90.08% negative predictive value, and 78.93% accuracy, and a p value of 0.004. However, this relationship was found not to be meaningful using CT scan images.
Conclusions: Using RMI 2 for differentiation of malignant from benign pelvic masses is a reliable method with ultrasound findings.
References
Majmudar T, Abdel-Rahman H. Pelvic mass–diagnosis and management. Obstetrics, Gynaecology &
Reproductive Medicine. 2008;18(7):193-8, doi: 10.1016/j.ogrm.2008.05.004.
Burbos N, Duncan TJ. Management of a pelvic mass. Obstetrics, Gynaecology & Reproductive Medicine.
;20(11):335-40, doi: 10.1016/j.ogrm.2010.08.005.
Schutter EM, Kenemans P, Sohn C, Kristen P, Crombach G, Westermann R, et al. Diagnostic value of
pelvic examination, ultrasound, and serum CA 125 in postmenopausal women with a pelvic mass. An
international multicenter study. Cancer. 1994;74(4):1398-406, doi: 10.1002/1097- 0142(19940815)74:4<1398::AID-CNCR2820740433>3.0.CO;2-J.
Jacobs I, Oram D, Fairbanks J, Turner J, Frost C, Grudzinskas J. A risk of malignancy index incorporating
CA 125, ultrasound and menopausal status for the accurate preoperative diagnosis of ovarian cancer.
BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology. 1990;97(10):922-9. doi: 10.1111/j.1471- 0528.1990.tb02448.x
Tingulstad S, Hagen B, Skjeldestad FE, Onsrud M, Kiserud T, Halvorsen T, 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. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology.
;103(8):826-31, doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.1996.tb09882.x.
Goldstein SR. Postmenopausal adnexal cysts: how clinical management has evolved. American journal of
obstetrics and gynecology. 1996;175(6):1498-501, doi: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2009.02.048.
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. European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and
Reproductive Biology. 2009;144(2):163-7, doi: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2009.02.048. PMid: 19327881.
Manjunath A, Sujatha K, Vani R. Comparison of three risk of malignancy indices in evaluation of pelvic
masses. Gynecologic oncology. 2001;81(2):225-9, doi: 10.1006/gyno.2001.6122. PMid: 11330953
Obeidat B, Amarin Z, Latimer J, Crawford R. Risk of malignancy index in the preoperative evaluation of
pelvic masses. International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics. 2004;85(3):255-8, doi:
1016/j.ijgo.2003.10.009. PMid: 15145261
Håkansson F, Høgdall EV, Nedergaard L, Lundvall L, Engelholm SA, Pedersen AT, et al. Risk of
malignancy index used as a diagnostic tool in a tertiary centre for patients with a pelvic mass. Acta
obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica. 2012;91(4):496-502, doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0412.2012.01359.x.
PMid: 22229703
Morgante G, Marca A, Ditto A, Leo V. Comparison of two malignancy risk indices based on serum
CA125, ultrasound score and menopausal status in the diagnosis of ovarian masses. BJOG: An
International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology. 1999;106(6):524-7, doi: 10.1111/j.1471- 0528.1999.tb08318.x.
Gillis C, Hole D, Still R, Davis J, Kaye S. Medical audit, cancer registration, and survival in ovarian
cancer. The Lancet. 1991;337(8741):611-2, doi: 10.1016/0140-6736(91)91673-I
van den Akker PA, Aalders AL, Snijders MP, Kluivers KB, Samlal RA, Vollebergh JH, et al. Evaluation of
the risk of malignancy index in daily clinical management of adnexal masses. Gynecologic oncology.
;116(3):384-8, doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2009.11.014. PMid: 19959215
Van Trappen P, Rufford B, Mills T, Sohaib S, Webb J, Sahdev A, et al. Differential diagnosis of adnexal
masses: risk of malignancy index, ultrasonography, magnetic resonance imaging, and
radioimmunoscintigraphy. International Journal of Gynecological Cancer. 2007;17(1):61-7, doi:
1111/j.1525-1438.2006.00753.x. PMid:17291233
Varras M. Benefits and limitations of ultrasonographic evaluation of uterine adnexal lesions in early
detection of ovarian cancer. Clinical and experimental obstetrics & gynecology. 2003;31(2):85-98.
Strigini FA, Gadducci A, Del Bravo B, Ferdeghini M, Genazzani AR. Differential diagnosis of adnexal
masses with transvaginal sonography, color flow imaging, and serum CA 125 assay in pre-and
postmenopausal women. Gynecologic oncology. 1996;61(1):68-72, doi: 10.1006/gyno.1996.0098. PMid:
Alanbay İ, Akturk E, Coksuer H, Ercan M, Karasahin E, Dede M, et al. Comparison of risk of malignancy
index (RMI), CA125, CA 19-9, ultrasound score, and menopausal status in borderline ovarian tumor.
Gynecological Endocrinology. 2012;28(6):478-82, doi: 10.3109/09513590.2011.633663. PMid: 22122561.
Anton C, Carvalho FM, Oliveira EI, Maciel GAR, Baracat EC, Carvalho JP. A comparison of CA125,
HE4, risk ovarian malignancy algorithm (ROMA), and risk malignancy index (RMI) for the classification
of ovarian masses. Clinics. 2012;67(5):437-41, doi: 10.6061/clinics/2012(05)06
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2020 knowledge kingdom publishing
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
