APPLICABILITY OF RISK OF MALIGNANCY INDEX IV FOR SCREENING MALIGNANT OVARIAN MASS AMONG PATIENT WITH ADNEXAL MASS AND ITS COMPARISION WITH OTHER RISK OF MALIGNANCY INDEXES.

  • Department of Obstetrics? and Gynaecology, S.C.B. Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack, Odisha, India.
Crossref Cited-by Linking logo

  • Abstract
  • References
  • How to Cite This Article
  • Corresponding Author

Background: Adnexal masses are common gynaecological conditions and might be encountered at every stage of a woman life. As presentation of ovarian cancer is very vague ovarian malignancies are called as ?SILENT KILLERS?. So patients presenting with adnexal mass needs to be preoperatively evaluated and screened for malignancy. Risk of Malignancy Index(RMI) is a combination screening method which utilises menopausal status, CA125 level and ultrasound findings to predict whether an adnexal mass is benign or malignant. Aim and Objective: The aim of the study is to evaluate the ability of RMI 4 to discriminate between benign and malignant adnexal mass and to compare it with RMI1, RMI2 and RMI3. MATERIAL AND METHODS- It is a prospective study done over a period from July 2015 to January 2018. Total 124 patients were included in study. Data regarding menopausal status, ultrasound features, size of lesion and CA125level were collected. RMI4 was calculated for each patient. Collected data was analyzed by comparing the means and the differences between groups and assessed with Student?s t test and ?2 test where necessary. Result: In present study, RMI4 was found to be a statistically significant as a screening agent for discriminating benign from malignant adnexal mass. The cut off value for RMI4 was found to be 450 with sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value of 68.3%, 84.4% and 80.4% respectively. When comparing effectiveness of RMI4 with other RMIs; RMI4 had a higher specificity compared to others like RMI1(82.8%), RMI2(82.8%) and RMI3(81.3%) but sensitivity of RMI2 (70%) is more than RMI4(68.3%). Conclusion: Ovarian cancer has become fourth most common cancer in India. India being a low resource country, identification of a malignant lesion at peripheral level pre-operatively will help in prompt referral to gynecological oncology centers.

  1. Changing Trends in Incidence of Ovarian Cancer - the Indian Scenario, Nandagudi Srinivasa Murthy1 , S Shalini1 , G Suman1 , Srekantaiah Pruthvish1 , Aleyamma Mathew2, Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention, ,Volume 10, Issue 6, June 2009, Page?1025-1030.
  2. 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: 922-9.
  3. Tingulstad S, Hagen B, Skjeldestad FE, et al. 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 Gynaecol 1996; 103: 826-31.
  4. 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. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1999; 93:448-52
  5. 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; 144:163-7
  6. Schutter EM, Kenemans P, Sohn C, Kristen P, Crombach G, Westermann R, et al. Diagnostic value of pelvic examination, ultrasound, and serum CA 125 in postmenopausal women with a pelvic mass. An international multicenter study. Cancer. 1994;74(4):1398-406, doi: 10.1002/10970142(19940815)74:4<1398::AID-CNCR2820740433>3.0.CO;2-J.
  7. Varras M. Benefits and limitations of ultrasonographic evaluation of uterine adnexal lesions in early detection of ovarian cancer. Clinical and experimental obstetrics & gynecology. 2003;31(2):85-98
  8. Simsek HS, Tokmak A, Ozgu E, et al. Ole of a risk of malignancy index in clinical approaches to adnexal masses. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2014;15(18): 7793?7
  9. Bouzari Z, Yazdani S, Kelagar ZS, Abbaszadeh N. Risk of malignancy index as an evaluation of preoperative pelvic mass. Caspian J Intern Med. 2011;2(4): 331?5.
  10. A prospective study to evaluate the risk malignancy index and its diagnostic implication in patients with suspected ovarian mass Santosh Kumar Dora* , Atal Bihari Dandapat, Benudhar Pande and Jatindra Prasad Hota, Dora et al. Journal of Ovarian Research (2017) 10:55 DOI 10.1186/s13048-017-0351-2
  11. Akdeniz N, Kuyumcuoğlu U, Kale A, Erdemoğlu M, Caca F. Risk of malignancy index for adnexal masses. Eur J Gynaecol Oncol. 2009;30(2):178?80
  12. Comparison of four malignancy risk indices in the detection of malignant ovarian masses Erhan Akt?rk Kazim Emre Karasahin Murat Dede? M?fit Cemal Yenen Article in Journal of Gynecologic Oncology ? September 2011 DOI: 10.3802/jgo.2011.22.3.177 ? Source: PubMed
  13. Jung-Woo Park, MD, Jee-Hyun Park, MD, Eun Seop Song, MD, Byoung-Ick Lee, MD, Jeong Hoon Lee, MD, Ki-Won Kim, MD, Kyoung-Mi Kim, MD, Min-Jae Jung, MD, Nae-Ri Yun, MD, Sung-Ook Hwang, MD, FOUR RISK OF MALIGNANCY INDICES IN EVALUATION OF PELVIC MASSES, Korean J Obstet Gynecol 2012;55(9):636-643 http://dx.doi.org/10.5468/KJOG.2012.55.9.636, pISSN 2233-5188 ? eISSN 2233-5196.

Smrutishree Sahoo, Sujata Singh, Lucy Das and Sasmita Swain. (2018); APPLICABILITY OF RISK OF MALIGNANCY INDEX IV FOR SCREENING MALIGNANT OVARIAN MASS AMONG PATIENT WITH ADNEXAL MASS AND ITS COMPARISION WITH OTHER RISK OF MALIGNANCY INDEXES., Int. J. of Adv. Res., 6 (10), 326-331, ISSN 2320-5407. DOI URL: https://dx.doi.org/10.21474/IJAR01/7813

Dr. Sujata Singh
Department of Obstetrics’ and Gynaecology, S.C.B. Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack, Odisha, India

DOI:

Article DOI: 10.21474/IJAR01/7813      
DOI URL: https://dx.doi.org/10.21474/IJAR01/7813

Download Full Paper

Download PDF No. of Downloads: 22 | No. of Views: 109