Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Risk of Malignancy Index (RMI) in Evaluation of Adnexal Mass

  • Original Article
  • Published:
The Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology of India Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

The discrimination between benign and malignant adnexal masses is central to decisions regarding clinical management and surgical planning in such patients.

Purpose of Study

To determine if the RMI (RMI 2) can distinguish between benign and malignant adnexal masses.

Methods

A prospective cohort study was conducted of 58 women with an adnexal mass referred to a teaching hospital for diagnosis and management.

Results

RMI > 200 had a sensitivity of 70.5 % (95 % CI 46.87–86.72), a specificity of 87.8 % (95 % CI 74.46–94.68), a positive predictive value of 70.5%, and negative predictive value of 87.8 %. ROC showed that cut off value of 25 achieved a sensitivity and specificity of 82.35 and 43.9 %, respectively, and a cut off value of 1,000 gave a sensitivity and specificity of 58.81 and 97.56 %, respectively. The association between RMI and disease status was not statistically significant for mucinous tumors.

Conclusion

RMI is a reliable tool in differentiating benign from malignant adnexal masses. It is simple, easy to use and cost effective. However it’s predictive accuracy was less for mucinous as compared to serous epithelial ovarian cancers. The study is limited by its small sample size.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Giede KC, Kieser K, Dodge J, et al. Who should operate on patients with ovarian cancer? An evidence-based review. Gynecol Oncol. 2005;99(2):447–61.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. ACOG Committee Opinion number 280. The role of the generalist obstetrician gynecologist in the early detection of ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2002;2002(100):1413–6.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Kirwan JM, Tinchello DG, Herodd JJ, et al. Effect of delays in primary care referral on survival of women with epithelial ovarian cancer. BMJ. 2002;324(7330):148–51.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Akturk E, Karaka RE, Alanbay I, et al. Comparison of four malignancy risk indices in the detection of malignant ovarian masses. J Gynecol Oncol. 2011;22(3):177–82.

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Morgante G, Marca AI, Ditto A, et al. Comparison of two malignancy risk indices based on serum CA-125, ultrasound score and menopausal status in the diagnosis of ovarian masses. Br J Obstet Gynecol. 1999;1999(106):524–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Jacobs I, Oram D, Fairbanks J, et al. A risk of malignancy index incorporating CA-125, ultrasound and menopausal status for the accurate pre-operative diagnosis of ovarian cancer. Br J Obstet Gynecol. 1990;1990(97):922–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Tingulstad S, Hagen B, Skjeldestad EF, et al. The Risk-of- Malignancy Index to evaluate potential ovarian cancers in local hospitals. Obstet Gynecol. 1999;1999(93):448–52.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Fung MF, Bryson P, Johnston M, et al. Screening postmenopausal women for ovarian cancer. A systematic review. J Obstet Gynecol Can. 2004;24(8):717–28.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Skates SJ, Mai P, Horrick NK, et al. Large prospective study of ovarian cancer screening in high risk women Ca 125 cut point defined by menopausal status. Cancer Prev Res. 2011;4(9):1401–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Davies AP, Jacobs I, Woolas R, et al. The adnexal mass: benign or malignant? Evaluation of a risk of malignancy index. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1993;1993(100):927–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Manjunath AP, Pratapkumar, Sujatha K, et al. Comparison of three risk of malignancy indices in evaluation of pelvic masses. Gynecol Oncol. 2001;2001(82):225–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. van Trappen PO, Rufford BD, Mills TD, et al. Differential diagnosis of adnexal masses: risk of malignancy index, ultrasonography, magnetic resonance imaging, and radioimmunoscintigraphy. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2007;17:61–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Rufford BD, Jacobs IJ. Green-top Guideline No. 34. Ovarian cysts in postmenopausal women. London, UK: Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, 2003. http://www.rcog.org.uk/files/rcog-corp/GTG3411022011.pdf.

  14. Van Calster B, Timmerman D, Valentin L, et al. Triaging women with ovarian masses for surgery: observational diagnostic study to compare RCOG guidelines with an international Ovarian Tumour Analysis (IOTA) group protocol. BJOG. 2012;2012(119):662–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Compliance with ethical standards and Conflict of interest

Informed Consent in studies with human subjects: All procedures followed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible committee on human experimentation (Institutional and National) and with the Helsinki declaration of 1975, as revised in 2008 (5). Informed consent was obtained from all patients for being included in the study. Dr. Rujuta Javdekar and Dr. Nandita Maitra declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of OB-GYN, PDU Medical College, Rajkot, India

    Rujuta Javdekar (Assistant Professor)

  2. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Medical College and SSG Hospital, Baroda, India

    Nandita Maitra (Assistant Professor)

Authors
  1. Rujuta Javdekar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Nandita Maitra
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nandita Maitra.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Javdekar, R., Maitra, N. Risk of Malignancy Index (RMI) in Evaluation of Adnexal Mass. J Obstet Gynecol India 65, 117–121 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13224-014-0609-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13224-014-0609-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation