Journals / GORM:Gynecology Obstetrics & Reproductive Medicine / 2021 / Cilt: 27 - Sayı: 2

A Prospective Study to Evaluate the Predictivity of Risk Malignancy Index in Adnexal Masses

Pages
169–174
Publication Date
2022-10-17
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Preoperativeop RMI calculation can provide accurate predictions for the establishment of an appropriate surgical plan for pelvic masses or referral to tertiary centers.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficiency of CA-125, menopausal status, ultrasound features and risk malignancy index in predicting malignancy in patients with an adnexal mass.
📊
Key Findings & Data:STUDY DESIGN: This study was designed prospectively and 212 patients who applied to our hospital and met the study criteria were included.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Preoperativeop RMI calculation can provide accurate predictions for the establishment of an appropriate surgical plan for pelvic masses or referral to tertiary centers.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficiency of CA-125, menopausal status, ultrasound features and risk malignancy index in predicting malignancy in patients with an adnexal mass. STUDY DESIGN: This study was designed prospectively and 212 patients who applied to our hospital and met the study criteria were included. Preoperatively RMI value was calculated for the differentiation of benign from malignant patients. The diagnosis was confirmed by histopathology. KolmogorovSmirnov, Yates correction, Pearson Chi-Square and Student's t-test were used for statistical analysis. ROC curves were drawn as diagnostic tests and the test results were presented. RESULTS: Of 212 patients included in our study, 174 (82%) patients’ were reported as benign, 6 (3%) borderline and 32 (15%) malignant. In predicting malignancy, the malignity risk index with 200 cutoff value the sensitivity and specivity was 87% and 80% respectively. However, when the cutoff value of malignity risk index taken as 112, the sensitivity was unchanged but the specificity increased to 90%. Similarly, when CA-125's cutoff value was taken as 46U/mL, the sensitivity did not change but the specificity increased from 68% to 72%. CONCLUSION: Malignancy risk index is a method that has high sensitivity and specificity. Preoperativeop RMI calculation can provide accurate predictions for the establishment of an appropriate surgical plan for pelvic masses or referral to tertiary centers.

🔖

Cite This Article

OBUT, M., TUNÇ, S. Y., ELMASTAŞ, N. Y. (2022). A Prospective Study to Evaluate the Predictivity of Risk Malignancy Index in Adnexal Masses. GORM:Gynecology Obstetrics & Reproductive Medicine, Cilt: 27 - Sayı: 2, 169–174. https://ajindex.com/articles/525842

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (11)

  1. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists’ Committee on Practice Bulletins-Gynecology. Practice Bulletin No. 174: Evaluation and Management of Adnexal Masses. Obstet Gynecol. 2016;128(5):e210-e226. doi: 10. 1097/AOG.0000000000001768
  2. Rossing MA, Wicklund KG, Cushing-Haugen KL, Weiss NS. Predictive value of symptoms for early detection of ovarian cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2010;102(4):222-9. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djp500
  3. Aktürk E, Karaca RE, Alanbay I, Dede M, Karaşahin E, Yenen MC, et al. Comparison of four malignancy risk indices in the detection of malignant ovarian masses. J Gynecol Oncol. 2011;22(3):177-82. doi: 10.3802/jgo. 2011.22.3.177
  4. 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(10):922-9. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528. 1990.tb02448.x
  5. 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 (10):927-31. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.1993.tb15109.x
  6. 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(8):826- 31. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.1996.tb09882.x
  7. 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(3):448-52. PMID: 10074998
  8. 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(2):163-7. doi: 10. 1016/j.ejogrb.2009.02.048
  9. Geomini P, Kruitwagen R, Bremer GL, Cnossen J, Mol BW. The accuracy of risk scores in predicting ovarian malignancy: a systematic review. Obstet Gynecol. 2009;113 (2 Pt 1):384-94. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e318195ad17
  10. Al-Asadi JN, Al-Maliki SK, Al-Dahhhan F, Al-Naama L, Suood F. The accuracy of risk malignancy index in prediction of malignancy in women with adnexal mass in Basrah, Iraq. Niger J Clin Pract. 2018;21(10):1254-9. doi: 10.4103/njcp.njcp_424_16
  11. Meray O, Türkçüoğlu I, Meydanlı MM, Kafkaslı A. Risk of malignancy index