DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

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)
  • Published : 2013.09.30

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

References

  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. https://doi.org/10.3802/jgo.2011.22.3.177
  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. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0090-8258(03)00192-6
  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. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1525-1438.2006.00468.x
  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. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0020-7292(00)90001-8
  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. https://doi.org/10.1186/1756-0500-4-206
  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. https://doi.org/10.7314/APJCP.2012.13.12.6485
  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. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2003.01.061
  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. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02940317
  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. https://doi.org/10.1002/jso.21274
  13. 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. https://doi.org/10.7314/APJCP.2013.14.1.603
  14. 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. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0528.1990.tb02448.x
  15. 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. https://doi.org/10.7314/APJCP.2013.14.4.2627
  16. 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.
  17. Moolthiya W, Yuenyao P (2009). The risk of malignancy index (RMI) in diagnosis of ovarian malignancy. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, 10, 865-8.
  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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2009.02.048
  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. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0029-7844(98)00433-5
  21. 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. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0528.1996.tb09882.x
  22. 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2011.07.035
  23. 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. https://doi.org/10.3109/00016349609054695

Cited by

  1. IOTA Simple Rules in Differentiating between Benign and Malignant Ovarian Tumors vol.15, pp.13, 2014, https://doi.org/10.7314/APJCP.2014.15.13.5123
  2. Role of a Risk of Malignancy Index in Clinical Approaches to Adnexal Masses vol.15, pp.18, 2014, https://doi.org/10.7314/APJCP.2014.15.18.7793
  3. Ovarian Malignancy Probability Score (OMPS) for Appropriate Referral of Adnexal Masses vol.15, pp.20, 2014, https://doi.org/10.7314/APJCP.2014.15.20.8647
  4. Comparative Evaluation of the Risk of Malignancy Index Scoring Systems (1-4) Used in Differential Diagnosis of Adnexal Masses vol.16, pp.1, 2015, https://doi.org/10.7314/APJCP.2015.16.1.345
  5. Differentiation of Benign from Malignant Adnexal Masses by Functional 3 Tesla MRI Techniques: Diffusion-Weighted Imaging and Time-Intensity Curves of Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced MRI vol.16, pp.8, 2015, https://doi.org/10.7314/APJCP.2015.16.8.3407
  6. IOTA Simple Rules in Differentiating between Benign and Malignant Adnexal Masses by Non-expert Examiners vol.16, pp.9, 2015, https://doi.org/10.7314/APJCP.2015.16.9.3835
  7. Predictive Value of Malignancy Risk Indices for Ovarian Masses in Premenopausal and Postmenopausal Women vol.17, pp.4, 2016, https://doi.org/10.7314/APJCP.2016.17.4.2177
  8. Can Replacing CA125 with HE4 in Risk of Malignancy Indices 1–4 Improve Diagnostic Performance in the Presurgical Assessment of Adnexal Tumors? vol.2017, pp.2314-6141, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/6712376