Risk of malignancy index in discrimination between benign and malignant adnexal masses

Introduction: Ovarian cancer is a big health concern, which continually attracts clinical debate in regard to validation and improvement of methods for malignancy prediction in women with adnexal masses. Purpose of investigation: The aim of this study was to evaluate the validity of the risk of malignancy index (RMI) as a diagnostic tool for discrimination between benign and malignant adnexal masses. Materials and Methods: The study group of 153 women with adnexal tumours were investigated and the RMI was calculated for each patient. Results: According to the histological examination of the specimens, 116 (75.8%) women had benign conditions, while 37 (24.2%) women had malignant masses. The RMI was reliable in 85% of all women with adnexal masses, and optimal cut-off value of 200 provides the highest performance for preoperative triage of adnexal masses. Conclusions: Although this study confirmed that the RMI is useful method for preoperative identification of benign and malignant adnexal masses, it is only a diagnostic tool and cannot predict malignancy in all cases.

Ovarian cancer; Risk of malignancy index; Preoperative evaluation; Adnexal masses.

[1] Liu J.H., Zanotti K.M.: “Management of the adnexal mass”. Obstet. Gynecol., 2011, 117, 1413.

[2] Ferlay J., Shin H.R., Bray F., Forman D., Mathers C., Parkin D.M.: “Estimates of worldwide burden of cancer in 2008: GLOBOCAN 2008”. Int. J. Cancer, 2010, 127, 2893.

[3] Guzel A.I., Kuyumcuoglu U., Erdemoglu M.: “Adnexal masses in postmenopausal and reproductive age women”. J. Exp. Ther. Oncol., 2011, 9, 167.

[4] Yazbek J., Raju S.K., Ben-Nagi J., Holland T.K., Hillaby K., Jurkovic D.: “Effect of quality of gynaecological ultrasonography on management of patients with suspected ovarian cancer: a randomised controlled trial”. Lancet Oncol., 2008, 9, 124.

[5] Dodge J.E., Covens A.L., Lacchetti C., Elit L.M., Le T., DevriesAboud M., et al.: “Preoperative identification of a suspicious adnexal mass: a systematic review and meta-analysis”. Gynecol. Oncol., 2012, 126, 157.

[6] Santotoribio J.D., Garcia-de la Torre A., Canavate-Solano C., ArceMatute F., Sanchez-del Pino M.J., Perez-Ramos S.: “Cancer antigens 19.9 and 125 as tumor markers in patients with mucinous ovarian tumors”. Eur. J. Gynaecol. Oncol., 2016, 37, 26.

[7] Jacobs I., Bast R.C. Jr.: “The CA 125 tumour-associated antigen: a review of the literature”. Hum. Reprod., 1989, 4, 1.

[8] Skates S.J., Mai P., Horick N.K., Piedmonte M., Drescher C.W., Isaacs C., et al.: “Large prospective study of ovarian cancer screening in high-risk women: CA125 cut-point defined by menopausal status”. Cancer. Prev. Res., 2011, 4, 1401.

[9] Jacobs I., Oram D., Fairbanks J., Turner J., Frost C., Grudzinskas J.G.: “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.

[10] Tingulstad S., Hagen B., Skjeldestad F.E., 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, 826.

[11] Tingulstad S., Hagen B., Skjeldestad F.E., Halvorsen T., Nustad K., Onsrud M.: “The risk-of-malignancy index to evaluate potential ovarian cancers in local hospitals”. Obstet. Gynecol., 1999, 93, 448.

[12] Aslam N., Tailor A., Lawton F., Carr J., Savvas M., Jurkovic D.: “Prospective evaluation of three different models for the pre-operative diagnosis of ovarian cancer”. BJOG, 2000, 107, 1347.

[13] Manjunath A.P., Pratapkumar, Sujatha K., Vani R.: “Comparison of three risk of malignancy indices in evaluation of pelvic masses”. Gynecol. Oncol., 2001, 81, 225.

[14] Bouzari Z., Yazdani S., Ahmadi M.H., Barat S., Kelagar Z.S., Kutenaie M.J., et al.: “Comparison of three malignancy risk indices and CA-125 in the preoperative evaluation of patients with pelvic masses”. BMC Res. Notes, 2011, 4, 1756.

[15] Abdulrahman G.O., Jr., McKnight L., Lutchman Singh K.: “The risk of malignancy index (RMI) in women with adnexal masses in Wales”. Taiwan. J. Obstet. Gynecol., 2014, 53, 376.

[16] Yenen M.C., Alanbay I., Akturk E., Ercan C.M., Coksuer H., Karasahin E., et al.: “Comparison of risk of malignancy indices; RMI 1-4 in borderline ovarian tumor”. Eur. J. Gynaecol. Oncol., 2012, 33, 168.

[17] Weiner Z., Thaler I., Beck D., Rottem S., Deutsch M., Brandes J.M.: “Differentiating malignant from benign ovarian tumors with transvaginal color flow imaging”. Obstet. Gynecol., 1992, 79, 159.

[18] Kurjak A., Zalud I., Alfirevic Z.: “Evaluation of adnexal masses with transvaginal color ultrasound”. J. Ultrasound. Med., 1991, 10, 295.

[19] Clarke-Pearson D.L.: “Clinical practice. Screening for ovarian cancer”. N. Engl. J. Med., 2009, 361, 170.

[20] Goff B.A., Mandel L., Muntz H.G., Melancon C.H.: “Ovarian carcinoma diagnosis”. Cancer, 2000, 89, 2068.

[21] Luketina H., Fotopoulou C., Luketina R.R., Pilger A., Sehouli J.: “Treatment decision-making processes in the systemic treatment of ovarian cancer: review of the scientific evidence”. Anticancer Res., 2012, 32, 4085.

[22] Strigini F.A., Gadducci A., Del Bravo B., Ferdeghini M., Genazzani A.R.: “Differential diagnosis of adnexal masses with transvaginal sonography, color flow imaging, and serum CA 125 assay in preand postmenopausal women”. Gynecol. Oncol., 1996, 61, 68.

[23] Park Y., Lee J.H., Hong D.J., Lee E.Y., Kim H.S.: “Diagnostic performances of HE4 and CA125 for the detection of ovarian cancer from patients with various gynecologic and non-gynecologic diseases”. Clin. Biochem., 2011, 44, 884.

[24] Dimitrijevic D., Vasiljevic M., Anicic R., Brankovic S., Ristic A., Devic A.: “Recurrence rate of ovarian endometriosis in patients treated with laparoscopic surgery and postoperative suppressive therapy”. Clin. Exp. Obstet. Gynecol., 2015, 42, 339.

[25] van Trappen P.O., Rufford B.D., Mills T.D., Sohaib S.A., Webb J.A., Sahdev A., et al.: “Differential diagnosis of adnexal masses: risk of malignancy index, ultrasonography, magnetic resonance imaging, and radioimmunoscintigraphy”. Int. J. Gynecol. Cancer, 2007, 17, 61.

[26] Terzic M.M., Dotlic J., Likic I., Ladjevic N., Brndusic N., Arsenovic N., et al.: “Current diagnostic approach to patients with adnexal masses: which tools are relevant in routine praxis?”. Chin. J. Cancer Res., 2013, 25, 55.

[27] Terzic M., Dotlic J., Likic I., Brndusic N., Pilic I., Ladjevic N., et al.: “Risk of malignancy index validity assessment in premenopausal and postmenopausal women with adnexal tumors”. Taiwan. J. Obstet. Gynecol., 2013, 52, 253.

[28] Enakpene C.A., Omigbodun A.O., Goecke T.W., Odukogbe A.T., Beckmann M.W.: “Preoperative evaluation and triage of women with suspicious adnexal masses using risk of malignancy index”. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. Res., 2009, 35, 131.

[29] van den Akker P.A., Aalders A.L., Snijders M.P., Kluivers K.B., Samlal R.A., Vollebergh J.H., et al.: “Evaluation of the Risk of Malignancy Index in daily clinical management of adnexal masses”. Gynecol. Oncol., 2010, 116, 384.

[30] Andersen E.S., Knudsen A., Rix P., Johansen B.: “Risk of malignancy index in the preoperative evaluation of patients with adnexal masses”. Gynecol. Oncol., 2003, 90, 109.

[31] Obeidat B.R., Amarin Z.O., Latimer J.A., Crawford R.A.: “Risk of malignancy index in the preoperative evaluation of pelvic masses”. Int. J. Gynaecol. Obstet., 2004, 85, 255.

[32] Lennox G.K., Eiriksson L.R., Reade C.J., Leung F., Mojtahedi G., Atenafu E.G., et al.: “Effectiveness of the risk of malignancy index and the risk of ovarian malignancy algorithm in a cohort of women with ovarian cancer: does histotype and stage matter?”. Int. J. Gynecol. Cancer, 2015, 25, 809.

[33] Richards A., Herbst U., Manalang J., Pather S., Saidi S., TejadaBerges T., et al.: “HE4, CA125, the Risk of Malignancy Algorithm and the Risk of Malignancy Index and complex pelvic masses - a prospective comparison in the pre-operative evaluation of pelvic masses in an Australian population”. Aust. N. Z. J. Obstet. Gynaecol., 2015, 55, 493.

[34] Akdeniz N., Kuyumcuoglu U., Kale A., Erdemoglu M., Caca F.: “Risk of malignancy index for adnexal masses”. Eur. J. Gynaecol. Oncol., 2009, 30, 178.

[35] Bailey J., Tailor A., Naik R., Lopes A., Godfrey K., Hatem H.M., et al.: “Risk of malignancy index for referral of ovarian cancer cases to a tertiary center: does it identify the correct cases?”. Int. J. Gynecol. Cancer, 2006, 1, 30.