Risk of malignancy index in the preoperative evaluation of pelvic masses

Obeidat, Basil; Amarin, Zouhair; Latimer, John; Crawford, Robin

doi:10.1016/j.ijgo.2003.10.009

Cited by 64 publications

(55 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In our study we found sensitivity 73.5%, specificity 97.1%, PPV 95.3% and NPV 82% by using RMI of more than 200. In the literature different values were defined for RMI and our results confirmed these studies (Jacobs et al, 1990;Davies et al, 1993;Tingulstad et al, 1999;Manjunath et al, 2001;Anderson et al, 2003;Ma et al, 2003;Obeidat et al, 2004;Yamamoto et al, 2009;Van der Akker et al, 2010;Ashrafgangooei et al, 2011;Van Gorp et al, 2012;Sayasneh et al, 2013;Terzic et al, 2013;Arun-Muthuvel et al, 2014).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 87%

Role of a Risk of Malignancy Index in Clinical Approaches to Adnexal Masses

Simsek¹,

Tokmak²,

Özgü³

et al. 2014

Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate predictive role of risk of malignancy index in discriminating between benign and malignant adnexal masses preoperatively. Methods: This retrospective study was conducted with a total of 569 patients with adnexal masses/ovarian cysts managed surgically at our clinic between January 2006 and January 2012. Obtained data from patient files were age, gravidity, parity, menopause status, ultrasound findings and CA125 levels. For all patients ultrasound scans were performed. For the assessment of risk of malignancy index (RMI) Jacobs' model was used. Histopathologic results of all patients were recorded postoperatively. Malignancy status of the surgically removed adnexal mass was the gold standard. Results: Of the total masses, 245 (43.1%) were malignant, 316 (55.5%) were benign and 8 (1.4%) were borderline. The mean age of benign cases was lower than malign cases (35.2±10.9 versus 50.8±13.4, p<0.001). Four hundred and five of them (71.2%) were in premenopausal period. Malignant tumors were more frequent in postmenopausal women (81% versus 29%, p<0.001). All ultrasound parameters of RMI were statistically significantly favorable for malignant masses. In our study ROC curve analysis for RMI provided maximum Youden index at level of 163.85. When we based on cutoff level for RMI as 163.85 sensitivity, specificity , PPV, NPV was calculated 74.7%, 96.2%, 94% and 82.6%, respectively. Conclusions: RMI was found to be a significant marker in preoperative evaluation and management of patients with an adnexal mass, and was useful for referring patients to tertiary care centers. Although utilization of RMI provides increased diagnostic accuracy in preoperative evaluation of patient with an adnexal mass, new diagnostic tools with higher sensitivity and specificity are needed to discriminate ovarian cancer from benign masses.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 87%

Role of a Risk of Malignancy Index in Clinical Approaches to Adnexal Masses

Simsek¹,

Tokmak²,

Özgü³

et al. 2014

Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Yamamoto et al [12], who created their own model of a malignancy risk index, added the parameter of tumor size (S) to the RMI, and have termed it RMI 4. Retrospective and prospective validation of the four versions of the RMI have been conducted in different clinical studies [9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24], where a cutoff value of 200 for RMI 1-3 and 450 for RMI 4 showed the best discrimination between benign and malignant pelvic masses, with high levels of sensitivity and specificity (sensitivity 51%-90%, specificity 51%-97%). The main advantage of four RMIs is that it is a simple scoring system that can be applied directly into clinical practice without the introduction of expensive or complicated methods (such as computed tomography scan, magnetic resonance imaging, and wholebody positron emission tomography).…”

Section: Jung-woo Park Et Al Four Rmis In Pelvic Massesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Four risk of malignancy indices in evaluation of pelvic masses

Park

Song

et al. 2012

Korean J Obstet Gynecol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Other models have been constructed by other researchers with different predicting accuracy namely Risk of Malignancy Index (RMI) number 1-5 based on sonographic findings, menopausal status and CA125 level (Soegaard, 2003;Obeidat, 2004;Leelahakorn, 2005;Ulusoy, 2007;Moolthiya, 2009).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%