AI Summary & Key Takeaways
AI InsightAccording to our findings, PMS is moresensitive and more practical than the RMI-3 scoring system.
📌 3 Key Takeaways
Özet
Objectives: Discrimination of benign and malignant adnexal masses is crucial for the follow-up and prognosis of the patient. Sinceeach modality alone does not have enough sensitivity, the combination of all methods called multimodal screening is currentlybeing used. In this study, we aimed to compare pelvic mass score (PMS) and the risk of malignancy index (RMI-3) scoring systemsin determining the malignant potential of adnexal masses.Methods: In this prospective observational study, 40 patients between the age of 15-79 who were diagnosed as an adnexal masswere included between March and October 2016. Patients were classified as benign (n=20) and malignant (n=20). The age, gravida,parity, findings of a pelvic examination, medical and family history, laboratory parameters, sonographic findings, histopathologicalresults, PMS and RMI-3 scores of the patients were recorded.Results: The mean age, CA-125 levels, Sassone scores and ultrasonography scores of patients were higher in malignant cases,whereas the resistance index was lower. Both RMI-3 and PMS scores were higher in the malignant group (1728.14±325.3 vs.36.27±31.01, p 53.2 (p<0.001).Conclusion: Age, menopause status, tumor markers and sonographic parameters may be beneficial alone for determining malignancy, whereas the scoring systems integrating all the parameters are more powerful. According to our findings, PMS is moresensitive and more practical than the RMI-3 scoring system.