P27.03: Risk of malignancy index in pre-operative evaluation of borderline ovarian tumors

2014 ◽  
Vol 44 (S1) ◽  
pp. 343-344
Author(s):  
M. Canto ◽  
N. Sarasa ◽  
G. Moreno ◽  
S. Palmero ◽  
N. Pons ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Ovarian Tumors ◽  
Borderline Ovarian Tumors ◽  
Risk Of Malignancy ◽  
Risk Of Malignancy Index ◽  
Operative Evaluation

scholarly journals Diagnostic extended usefulness of RMI: comparison of four risk of malignancy index in preoperative differentiation of borderline ovarian tumors and benign ovarian tumors

2019 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Shuang Zhang ◽  
Shan Yu ◽  
Wenying Hou ◽  
Xiaoying Li ◽  
Chunping Ning ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Ovarian Tumor ◽  
Menopausal Status ◽  
Area Under The Curve ◽  
Ovarian Tumors ◽  
Borderline Ovarian Tumor ◽  
Cancer Antigen 125 ◽  
Borderline Ovarian Tumors ◽  
Risk Of Malignancy ◽  
Risk Of Malignancy Index ◽  
Benign Ovarian Tumors

Abstract Background This study aimed to examine the performance of the four risk of malignancy index (RMI) in discriminating borderline ovarian tumors (BOTs) and benign ovarian masses in daily clinical practice. Methods A total of 162 women with BOTs and 379 women with benign ovarian tumors diagnosed at the Second Affiliated Hospital of Harbin Medical University from January 2012 to December 2016 were enrolled in this retrospective study. Also, we classified these patients into serous borderline ovarian tumor (SBOT) and mucinous borderline ovarian tumor (MBOT) subgroup. Preoperative ultrasound findings, cancer antigen 125 (CA125) and menopausal status were reviewed. The area under the curve (AUC) of receiver operator characteristic curves (ROC) and performance indices of RMI I, RMI II, RMI III and RMI IV were calculated and compared for discrimination between benign ovarian tumors and BOTs. Results RMI I had the highest AUC (0.825, 95% CI: 0.790–0.856) among the four RMIs in BOTs group. Similar results were found in SBOT (0.839, 95% CI: 0.804–0.871) and MBOT (0.791, 95% CI: 0.749–0.829) subgroups. RMI I had the highest specificity among the BOTs group (87.6, 95% CI: 83.9–90.7%), SBOT (87.6, 95% CI: 83.9–90.7%) and MBOT group (87.6, 95% CI: 83.9–90.7%). RMI II scored the highest overall in terms of sensitivity among the BOTs group (69.75, 95% CI: 62.1–76.7%), SBOT (74.34, 95% CI: 65.3–82.1%) and MBOT (59.18, 95% CI: 44.2–73.0%) group. Conclusion Compared to other RMIs, RMI I was the best-performed method for differentiation of BOTs from benign ovarian tumors. At the same time, RMI I also performed best in the discrimination SBOT from benign ovarian tumors.

Pediatric risk of malignancy index for preoperative evaluation of childhood ovarian tumors

2011 ◽  
Vol 28 (3) ◽  
pp. 259-266 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amos Hong Pheng Loh ◽  
Chiou Li Ong ◽  
Shu Lin Lam ◽  
Joyce Horng Yiing Chua ◽  
Chan Hon Chui
Keyword(s):  
Preoperative Evaluation ◽  
Ovarian Tumors ◽  
Risk Of Malignancy ◽  
Risk Of Malignancy Index

scholarly journals Risk of malignancy index in ovarian tumour for predicting ovarian malignancy by using Jacob’s score

2017 ◽  
Vol 6 (4) ◽  
pp. 1318
Author(s):  
Rao P. S. ◽  
Bala Reenu ◽  
S. Prajwal
Keyword(s):  
Predictive Value ◽  
Case Fatality ◽  
Ovarian Tumors ◽  
Ca 125 ◽  
Ovarian Malignancy ◽  
Gynecological Malignancy ◽  
Menopausal Women ◽  
Risk Of Malignancy ◽  
Risk Of Malignancy Index ◽  
Post Menopausal

Background: Ovarian malignancy is the most common gynecological malignancy after the cancer of the cervix. A woman's risk at birth of ovarian cancer at some time in her life is 1 % to 1.5% and that of dying from cancer is almost 0.5 %. The most commonly occurring ovarian tumors are of epithelial in origin. It has the highest case-fatality ratio of all gynecological malignancies. Hence the early diagnosis is the most important factor for better prognosis. A clinical evaluation of the patient, followed by ultrasonography and CA-125 is helpful. This study aims to determine the role of Risk of Malignancy Index (Jacob’s RMI) in ovarian tumors for prediction of ovarian malignancy.Methods: This is a prospective cohort study. The present study was carried out at department of OBG, in collaboration with the Departments of Radio diagnosis and Pathology, AHRR, New Delhi. 100 patients meeting the inclusion and exclusion criteria were considered. Detailed clinical history, examination and ultrasonography (Abdomen and pelvis) were done. Estimation of CA125 was done thereafter. Calculated JACOBS RMI score was compared with operative surgical staging and histopathological-cytological examination of the specimen. Data obtained thereafter was analysed using appropriate and relevant statistical software.Results: In present study sensitivity of RMI Score in the pre-menopausal women was 66.7% and in post-menopausal women was 83.3%. Specificity of RMI Score in the pre-menopausal women was 96.3% and in post-menopausal women was 81.8%. The positive predictive value in the pre-menopausal women was 40% and in post-menopausal women was 71.4%. The negative predictive value in the pre-menopausal women was 98.7% and in post-menopausal women was 90%. Diagnostic accuracy in a case of premenopausal women was is 95.2% and 82.4% for postmenopausal women.Conclusions: The present study shows that RMI Score helps in identifying effectively those patients who require Staging Laparotomy and hence referral to Gynecologist Oncologist. Patients with ovarian masses with low risk of malignancy index can be treated by minimal access procedures.

Use of risk of malignancy index to indicate frozen section analysis in the surgical care of women with ovarian tumors

2016 ◽  
Vol 133 (3) ◽  
pp. 355-358 ◽  
Author(s):  
Petronella A.J. van den Akker ◽  
Petra L.M. Zusterzeel ◽  
Anette L. Aalders ◽  
Marc P.L.M. Snijders ◽  
Rahul A.K. Samlal ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Frozen Section ◽  
Surgical Care ◽  
Ovarian Tumors ◽  
Frozen Section Analysis ◽  
Risk Of Malignancy ◽  
Risk Of Malignancy Index ◽  
Section Analysis

scholarly journals Сравнительная оценка алгоритмов дифференциальной диагностики образований яичников (ROMA, RMI)

2020 ◽  
pp. 48-59
Keyword(s):  
Tumor Markers ◽  
Ovarian Tumors ◽  
Ovarian Malignancy ◽  
Risk Of Malignancy ◽  
Risk Of Malignancy Index

Цель настоящего исследования - сравнение эффективности алгоритмов ROMA и RMI в прогнозировании злокачественного характера образований яичников. Проведено обследование 188 женщин с одно- или двусторонними образованиями яичников. У 126 (67,0%) пациенток были выявлены доброкачественные образования яичников (первая группа), у 62 (33,0%) - злокачественные (вторая группа). У всех пациенток диагноз был верифицирован по результатам морфологического исследования послеоперационного материала. В первой группе в подгруппе менопаузы было 78 из 126 (61,9%) пациенток, во второй группе - 48 из 62 (77,4%) (P 0,05). При сравнении пациенток с доброкачественными и злокачественными образованиями яичников получены достоверные различия по показателям ROMA и RMI в группах и подгруппах сравнения (P 0,05). Показатель RMI обладает более высокими показателями диагностической эффективности по сравнению с показателем ROMA (AUC, чувствительность и специфичность соответствуют 0,93, 85,5% и 96,8% против 0,89, 87,1% и 83,3% соответственно). Показатель RMI может быть рекомендован в качестве начального этапа дифференциально-диагностического поиска у пациенток с образованиями яичников. Ключевые слова: ультразвуковая диагностика, злокачественные опухоли яичников, онкомаркеры, CA125, HE4, алгоритм расчета риска злокачественного образования яичников (ROMA), индекс риска злокачественности (RMI), ultrasound, malignant ovarian tumors, tumor markers, CA125, HE4, risk of ovarian malignancy algorithm (ROMA), risk of malignancy index (RMI)

scholarly journals Risk of Malignancy Index Has a Poor Sensitivity in Detecting Borderline Epithelal Tumors and Non-Epithelial Ovarian Tumors

2019 ◽  
pp. 1
Author(s):  
Yasin Durmus ◽  
Mehmet Mutlu Meydanli
Keyword(s):  
Predictive Value ◽  
Ovarian Tumors ◽  
Ca 125 ◽  
Histopathological Diagnosis ◽  
Adnexal Masses ◽  
Epithelial Tumors ◽  
Ovarian Cancers ◽  
Risk Of Malignancy ◽  
Risk Of Malignancy Index ◽  
The Difference

<p><strong>Objectives:</strong> To evaluate diagnostic accuracy of "Risk Of Malignancy İndex-1" (RMI-1) for postmenopausal adnexal masses.</p><p><strong>Study Design:</strong> Fifty postmenopausal women who had undergone surgery because of adnexal masses were included in this prospective study. RMI-1 scores were calculated through the formula: [RMI= Ultrasound Score x Menopause Score x Serum Ca-125 Level] and noted preoperatively by the same sonographer for each case. "Final histopathological diagnosis" was accepted as gold standard for benign-malignant categorical distribution. Borderline tumors were categorized in malignant tumor group.<br /><strong></strong></p><p><strong>Results:</strong> According to final histopathological results; 20 of the 50 patients had malignant adnexal masses. Twelve of them had invasive epithelial tumors. The remaining 8 patients had borderline epithelial tumors or non-epithelial ovarian cancers. When the RMI score ≥200 was accepted as a positive test result compatible with the literature; we calculated the sensitivity: 75%, specificity: 93%, positive predictive value: 88%, negative predictive value: 85% predicting malignant adnexal masses. All of the 12 patients with invasive epithelial tumors had RMI-1 scores higher than 200. Nevertheless, only 3 of the 8 patients with borderline epithelial tumors or non-epithelial ovarian cancers had RMI-1 scores higher than 200. We have found out that invasive epithelial tumors had higher USG Scores, Ca-125 Levels and RMI Scores when compared to borderline epithelial tumors and non-epithelial ovarian cancers and the difference was statistically significant.<br /><strong></strong></p><p><strong>Conclusions:</strong> RMI-1 is a valuable and applicable method in the initial evaluation of postmenopausal patients with adnexal masses. İt has a high diagnostic performance in detecting invasive epithelial ovarian cancers, but it has a poor sensitivity in detecting borderline ovarian tumors and non-epithelial ovarian cancers.</p>

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document