Korean J Obstet Gynecol.  2012 Sep;55(9):636-643. 10.5468/KJOG.2012.55.9.636.

Four risk of malignancy indices in evaluation of pelvic masses

• Park JW
• Park JH
• Song ES
• Lee BI
• Lee JH
• Kim KW
• Kim KM
• Jung MJ
• Yun NR
• Hwang SO

• KMID: 2274135
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.5468/KJOG.2012.55.9.636

Abstract

OBJECTIVE
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the ability of the four malignancy risk indices for discrimination of a benign mass from a malignant pelvic mass.
METHODS
This is a retrospective study of 547 women admitted to the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology of Inha University College of Medicine, between January, 2007, and December, 2010, for surgical exploration of a pelvic mass. Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and diagnostic accuracy of four risk of malignancy indices (RMIs: RMI 1, RMI 2, RMI 3, and RMI 4) were obtained for diagnosis of a malignant pelvic mass.
RESULTS
Results of receiver operating characteristic analysis of RMI 1-4, CA-125 serum levels, ultrasound score, menopausal status, and tumor size showed values of the area under the curve of 0.9233, 0.9151, 0.9132, 0.9263, 0.8472, 0.9007, 5870, and 0.7714, respectively. The four RMIs showed statistical significance with menopausal status (P=0.001) and tumor size (P=0.03), but not with CA-125 and ultrasound score (P>0.05).
CONCLUSION
Four RMIs were found to be statistically significant diagnostic criteria, compared with menopausal status and tumor size, which can discriminate between benign and malignant pelvic masses.

Keyword

Risk of malignancy index; Pelvic mass; Ovarian cancer

MeSH Terms

Discrimination (Psychology)
Female
Gynecology
Humans
Obstetrics
Ovarian Neoplasms
Retrospective Studies
ROC Curve
Sensitivity and Specificity

Figure

• 

  Fig. 1 Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves of the individual predictors showing the relationship between sensitivity and specificity of menopause score, ultrasound score, serum CA-125 level, tumor size, and risk of malignancy index (RMI) 1-4 in the discrimination between benign and malignant pelvic masses.

Reference

1. Young RC, Decker DG, Wharton JT, Piver MS, Sindelar WF, Edwards BK, et al. Staging laparotomy in early ovarian cancer. JAMA. 1983. 250:3072–3076.

2. Gillis CR, Hole DJ, Still RM, Davis J, Kaye SB. Medical audit, cancer registration, and survival in ovarian cancer. Lancet. 1991. 337:611–612.

3. Engelen MJ, Kos HE, Willemse PH, Aalders JG, de Vries EG, Schaapveld M, et al. Surgery by consultant gynecologic oncologists improves survival in patients with ovarian carcinoma. Cancer. 2006. 106:589–598.

4. Earle CC, Schrag D, Neville BA, Yabroff KR, Topor M, Fahey A, et al. Effect of surgeon specialty on processes of care and outcomes for ovarian cancer patients. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2006. 98:172–180.

5. Kumpulainen S, Kuoppala T, Leminen A, Penttinen J, Puistola U, Pukkala E, et al. Surgical treatment of ovarian cancer in different hospital categories: a prospective nation-wide study in Finland. Eur J Cancer. 2006. 42:388–395.

6. Goff BA, Matthews BJ, Wynn M, Muntz HG, Lishner DM, Baldwin LM. Ovarian cancer: patterns of surgical care across the United States. Gynecol Oncol. 2006. 103:383–390.

7. McGowan L, Lesher LP, Norris HJ, Barnett M. Misstaging of ovarian cancer. Obstet Gynecol. 1985. 65:568–572.

8. Eisenkop SM, Spirtos NM, Montag TW, Nalick RH, Wang HJ. The impact of subspecialty training on the management of advanced ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 1992. 47:203–209.

9. Jacobs I, Oram D, Fairbanks J, Turner J, Frost C, Grudzinskas JG. A risk of malignancy index incorporating CA 125, ultrasound and menopausal status for the accurate preoperative diagnosis of ovarian cancer. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1990. 97:922–929.

10. 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. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1996. 103:826–831.

11. Tingulstad S, Hagen B, Skjeldestad FE, Halvorsen T, Nustad K, Onsrud M. The risk-of-malignancy index to evaluate potential ovarian cancers in local hospitals. Obstet Gynecol. 1999. 93:448–452.

12. 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. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2009. 144:163–167.

13. Davies AP, Jacobs I, Woolas R, Fish A, Oram D. The adnexal mass: benign or malignant? Evaluation of a risk of malignancy index. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1993. 100:927–931.

14. Morgante G, la Marca A, Ditto A, De Leo V. 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. 106:524–527.

15. Aslam N, Tailor A, Lawton F, Carr J, Savvas M, Jurkovic D. Prospective evaluation of three different models for the pre-operative diagnosis of ovarian cancer. BJOG. 2000. 107:1347–1353.

16. Manjunath AP, Pratapkumar , Sujatha K, Vani R. Comparison of three risk of malignancy indices in evaluation of pelvic masses. Gynecol Oncol. 2001. 81:225–229.

17. Mol BW, Boll D, De Kanter M, Heintz AP, Sijmons EA, Oei SG, et al. Distinguishing the benign and malignant adnexal mass: an external validation of prognostic models. Gynecol Oncol. 2001. 80:162–167.

18. Torres JC, Derchain SF, Faundes A, Gontijo RC, Martinez EZ, Andrade LA. Risk-of-malignancy index in preoperative evaluation of clinically restricted ovarian cancer. Sao Paulo Med J. 2002. 120:72–76.

19. Andersen ES, Knudsen A, Rix P, Johansen B. Risk of malignancy index in the preoperative evaluation of patients with adnexal masses. Gynecol Oncol. 2003. 90:109–112.

20. Obeidat BR, Amarin ZO, Latimer JA, Crawford RA. Risk of malignancy index in the preoperative evaluation of pelvic masses. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2004. 85:255–258.

21. Bailey J, Tailor A, Naik R, Lopes A, Godfrey K, Hatem HM, et al. Risk of malignancy index for referral of ovarian cancer cases to a tertiary center: does it identify the correct cases? Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2006. 16:Suppl 1. 30–34.

22. van Trappen PO, Rufford BD, Mills TD, Sohaib SA, Webb JA, Sahdev A, et al. Differential diagnosis of adnexal masses: risk of malignancy index, ultrasonography, magnetic resonance imaging, and radioimmunoscintigraphy. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2007. 17:61–67.

23. Ulusoy S, Akbayir O, Numanoglu C, Ulusoy N, Odabas E, Gulkilik A. The risk of malignancy index in discrimination of adnexal masses. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2007. 96:186–191.

24. Aktürk E, Karaca RE, Alanbay I, Dede M, Karasahin E, Yenen MC, et al. Comparison of four malignancy risk indices in the detection of malignant ovarian masses. J Gynecol Oncol. 2011. 22:177–182.

25. FIGO Cancer Committee. Staging announcement. Gynecol Oncol. 1986. 25:383–385.

26. Curtin JP. Management of the adnexal mass. Gynecol Oncol. 1994. 55:S42–S46.

27. Goff BA, Mandel L, Muntz HG, Melancon CH. Ovarian carcinoma diagnosis. Cancer. 2000. 89:2068–2075.

28. Clarke SE, Grimshaw R, Rittenberg P, Kieser K, Bentley J. Risk of malignancy index in the evaluation of patients with adnexal masses. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2009. 31:440–445.