DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

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)
  • Published : 2015.02.04

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

References

  1. Valentin L (2004). Use of morphology to characterize and manage common adnexal masses. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol, 18, 71-89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2003.10.002
  2. 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
  3. 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
  4. 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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-009-1038-8
  5. 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. https://doi.org/10.7314/APJCP.2013.14.9.5455
  6. 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
  7. Ashrafgangooei T, Rezaeezadeh M (2011). Risk of malignancy index in preoperative evaluation of pelvic masses. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, 12, 1727-30.
  8. 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
  9. 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgo.2003.10.009
  10. 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.
  11. 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0301-2115(97)00235-2
  12. 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2011.02.009
  13. 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.
  14. 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
  15. Chia YN, Marsden DE, Robertson G, Hacker NF (2008). Triage of ovarian masses. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol, 48, 322-8. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1479-828X.2008.00825.x
  16. 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
  17. 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. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0528.1993.tb15109.x
  18. 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.
  19. 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. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.21616
  20. 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.
  21. Fiorca JV, Roberts WS (1996). Screening for ovarian cancer. Cancer Control, 3, 120-9.
  22. 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. https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0b013e318195ad17
  23. 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. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.09.3522
  24. 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
  25. Landis SH, Murray T, Bolden 5, Wingo PA (1999). Cancer statistics. CA Cancer J Clin, 49, 8-31. https://doi.org/10.3322/canjclin.49.1.8
  26. 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.
  27. 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. https://doi.org/10.1006/gyno.2001.6122
  28. 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.
  29. 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

Cited by

  1. Improved Diagnostic Accuracy in Characterization of Adnexal Masses by Detection of Choline Peak Using 1H MR Spectroscopy in Comparison to Internal Reference at 3 Tesla vol.16, pp.12, 2015, https://doi.org/10.7314/APJCP.2015.16.12.5085
  2. 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
  3. 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
  4. 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