Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention

Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention (아시아태평양암예방학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Predictive Value of Malignancy Risk Indices for Ovarian Masses in Premenopausal and Postmenopausal Women

  • Ertas, Sinem (Gynecology and Obstetrics Clinic, Haydarpasa Numune Training and Research Hospital) ;
  • Vural, Fisun (Gynecology and Obstetrics Clinic, Haydarpasa Numune Training and Research Hospital) ;
  • Tufekci, Ertugrul Can (Gynecology and Obstetrics Clinic, Haydarpasa Numune Training and Research Hospital) ;
  • Ertas, Ahmet Candost (Uludag University School of Medicine) ;
  • Kose, Gultekin (Gynecology and Obstetrics Clinic, Haydarpasa Numune Training and Research Hospital) ;
  • Aka, Nurettin (Gynecology and Obstetrics Clinic, Haydarpasa Numune Training and Research Hospital)
  • Published : 2016.06.01
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Background: To evaluate the predictive role of a risk of malignancy index in discriminating between benign and malignant adnexal masses preoperatively. Materials and Methods: A total of 408 patients with adnexal masses managed surgically between January 2010 and February 2014 were included. The risk of malignancy indices (RMI) 1, 2, 3 and 4 were calculated using findings for ultrasonography, menopausal status, and CA125 levels. Histopathologic results were the end point. ROC analysis was used for the sensitivity and the specificity of the models. Results: Some 37.6 % of the cases were malignant in the postmenopausal group while 7.9 % were malignant in the premenopausal group. Pelvic pain was the most common complaint, and the majority of the cases were diagnosed at stage 3. The RMI 1, 2, 3 and 4 yielded percentage sensitivities of 76.1, 79.1, 76.1 and 76.1 and specificities of 91.5, 89.1, 90.6, 88.6, respectively. RMI 1 was the most reliable test in the general population according to AUC levels and Kappa statistics. From ROC analysis results of post/premenopausal women, the RMI 1 (cut off: 200) yielded sensitivities of 84.0/60.9 and specificities of 87.7/92.5. With RMI 2 they were 88.6/60.9 and 80.0/91.0, with RMI 3 84.0/60.9 and 87.7/91.8, and with RMI 4 (cut off:400) 81.8/47.8 and 83.6 /44.0. Although test performance of RMI methods were good in a general population and postmenopausal women, the RMI inter-agreement validity was only moderate or fair in premenopausal women. Conclusions: Our study confirms the effectiveness of RMI algorithms in postmenopausal women. However, more sensitive tests are needed for premenopausal women.

Keywords

References

  1. Abdulrahman Jr.GO, McKnight L, Singh KL (2014). The risk of malignancy index (RMI) in women with adnexal masses in Wales. Taiwanese Journal Obs Gyn, 53, 376-81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tjog.2014.05.002
  2. Aggarwal P, Kehoe S (2010). Serum tumour markers in gynaecological cancers. Maturitas, 67, 46-53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.maturitas.2010.04.017
  3. 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
  4. Andersen ES, Knudsen A, Rix P, et al (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. Arun-Muthuvel V, Java V (2014). Pre-operative evaluation of ovarian tumors by risk of malignancy index , CA 125 and ultrasound. Asian Pac J Cancer Pre, 15, 2929-32. https://doi.org/10.7314/APJCP.2014.15.6.2929
  6. Ashrafganggooei T, Rezaeezadeh M (2011). Risk of malignancy index in preoperative evaluation of pelvic masses. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, 12, 1727-30.
  7. 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
  8. Clarke S, Grimshaw R, Rittenberg P, et al (2009) Risk of Malingnacy Index in the Evaluation of patients with adnexal masses. J Obstet Gynaecol Can, 3, 440-5.
  9. Curtin JP (1994).Management of the adnexal mass. Gynecol Oncol, 55, 42-6. https://doi.org/10.1006/gyno.1994.1340
  10. Eisenkop SM, Spirtos NM, Montag TW, et al (1991). The impact of subspeciality on the management of advanced ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol, 47, 203-9.
  11. Elit L, Bondy SJ, Paszat L, et al (2002). Outcomes in surgery for ovarian cancer, Gynecol Oncol, 87, 260-7. https://doi.org/10.1006/gyno.2002.6834
  12. Enakpene CA, Omigbodun AO, Goecke TW, et al (2009) Preoperative evaluation and triage of women with suspicious adnexal masses using risk of malignancy index. J Obstet Gynaecol, 35, 131-8.
  13. Geomini P, Kruitwagen R, Bremer GL, et al (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
  14. Gibbs RS, Karlan BY, Haney AF, Nygaard I (2010). Danfort's Obstetrics and Gynecology 10th ed.1061.
  15. Jacobs I, Oram D, Fairbanks J, et al (1990). A risk of malignancy incorporating CA 125 , ultrasound and menopausal status fort he accurate preoperative diagnosis of ovarian cancer. Br J Obstet Gynecol, 97, 922-9. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0528.1990.tb02448.x
  16. Kaijser J, Sayasneh A, Van Hoorde K, et al (2014). Presurgical diagnosis of adnexal tumours using mathematical models and scoring systems: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Human Reproductive Update, 20, 449-62. https://doi.org/10.1093/humupd/dmt059
  17. Kehoe S, Powell J, Wilson S, et al (1994). The influence of the operating surgeons specialisation on patient survival in ovarian carcinoma. Int J Cancer, 70, 1014-7. https://doi.org/10.1038/bjc.1994.440
  18. Moolthiya W, Yuenyao P (2009). The Risk of Malignancy Index (RMI) in Diagnosis of Ovarian Malignancy. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, 10, 865-68.
  19. Morgante G, la Marca A, Ditto A, et al (1999). Comparison of two malignancy risk indices based on serum CA125, ultrasound score and menopausal status in the diagnosis of ovarian masses. Br J Obstet Gynecol, 106, 524-7. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0528.1999.tb08318.x
  20. National Institutes of Health Consensus Development Conference Statement (1994). Ovarian cancer: screening, treatment, and follow-up. Gynecol Oncol, 55, 4-14. https://doi.org/10.1006/gyno.1994.1333
  21. NICE Clinical Guidelines (2011). CG122. Ovarian cancer: the recognition and intial menagement of ovarian cancer . Issued: April.
  22. Obeidat BR, Amarin ZO, Latimer JA, et al (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
  23. Ong C, Biswas A, Choolani M, et al (2013). Comparison of risk of malignancy indices in evaluating ovarian masses in a Southeast Asian population. Singapore Med J, 54 ,134-9.
  24. Ozols RF, Rubin SC, Thomas GM, et al (2005). Epithelial ovarian cancer. In: Hoskins WJ, Perez CA, Young R, Barakat R, editors. Principles and practice of gynecologic oncology. 4th ed. Philadelphia, PA:Lippincott Williams and Wilkins, 895-987.
  25. Ozun Ozbay P, Ekinci T, Demir Caltekin M, et al (2015). Comparative evaluation of the risk of malignancy index scoring system (1-4) used in differential diagnosis of adnexal masses. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, 16, 345-9. https://doi.org/10.7314/APJCP.2015.16.1.345
  26. Prat J (2014). FIGO staging classification for cancer of the ovary, fallopian tube, and peritoneum.FIGO committee on gynecologic oncology. Int J Gynaecol Obstet, 124, 1-5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgo.2013.10.001
  27. RCOG guideline:ovarian cysts in postmenopausal women. October 2003.(Green top 34).
  28. Sayasneh A, Wynants L, Preisler J, et al (2013) T. Multicentre external validation of IOTA prediction models and RMI by operators with varied training. Br J Cancer, 108, 2448-54. https://doi.org/10.1038/bjc.2013.224
  29. Siegel R, Ma J, Zou Z, et al (2014). Cancer Statistics, 2014. CA Cancer J Clin, 64, 9-29. https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21208
  30. Su Z, Graybill WS, Zhu Y (2013). Detection and monitoring of ovarian cancer. Clin Chim Acta, 415, 341-5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cca.2012.10.058
  31. Simsek HS, Tokmak A, Ozgu E, et al (2014) Role of risk of malignacy index in clinical approach to adnexal masses. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, 15, 7793-97. https://doi.org/10.7314/APJCP.2014.15.18.7793
  32. Terzic M, Dotlic J, Likic I, et al (2013). Risk of malignancy index validity assessment in premenopausal and postmenopausal women with adnexal tumors. Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol, 52, 253-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tjog.2013.04.017
  33. The role of the generalist obstetrician-gynecologist in the early detection of ovarian cancer (2002). ACOG Committee Opinion No. 280. american college of obstetricians and gynecologists. Obstet Gynecol, 100, 1413-6.
  34. Tingulstad S, Hagen B, Skjeldestad FE, et al (1996). Evaluation of risk of malignancy index based on serum CA 125 , ultrasound findings and menopausal status in the preoperative diagnosis of pelvic masses. Br J Obstet Gynecol, 102, 826-31.
  35. Tingulstad S, Hagen B, Skjeldestad FE, et al (1999) The risk of malignancy index to evaluate potential ovarian cancers in ocal hospitals. Br J Obstet Gynecol, 93, 448-52.
  36. Van den Akker PA, Aalders AL, Snijders MP, et al (2009) Evaluation of the risk of malignancy index in daily clinical management of adnexal masses. Gynecol Oncol, 116, 384-8.
  37. Van Gorp T, Veldman J, Van Calster B, et al (2012). Subjective assessment by ultrasound is superior to the risk of malignancy index (RMI) or the rsk of ovarian malignancy algorithm (ROMA) in discriminating benign from malignant adnexal masses. Eur J Cancer, 48, 1649-56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2011.12.003
  38. Van Trappen PO, Rufford BD, Mills TD, et al (2007) Differential diagnosis of adnexal masses : risk of malignancy index, ultrasonography, magnetic resonance, and radioimmunoscintigraphy. Int J Gynecol Cancer, 17, 61-7. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1525-1438.2006.00753.x
  39. Winarto H, Laihad BJ, Nuranna L (2014).Sonographic morphology scores (SMS) for differentiation between benign and malignant adnexal masses. Asian Pac J Cancer, 7, 407-10.
  40. Yamamoto Y, Yamada R, Oguri H, et al (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
  41. 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
  42. Yazbek J, Aslam S, Tailor A, et al (2006). A comparative study of the risk of malignancy index and the ovarian crescent sign fort he diagnosis of invasive ovarian cancer. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol, 28, 320-4. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.2842
  43. Yesilyurt H, Tokmak A, Guzel A?, et al (2014). Parameters for predicting granulosa cell tumor of ovary a single center retrospective comparative study. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, 15, 8447-50. https://doi.org/10.7314/APJCP.2014.15.19.8447