scholarly journals Assessment of diagnostic value of Serum Ca-125 and risk of malignancy index scoring in the evaluation of adnexal masses

2019 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
pp. 192
Author(s):  
Anupama Bahadur ◽  
Kavita Khoiwal ◽  
Ranjeeta Kumari ◽  
Namrata Bhattacharya ◽  
Shalinee Rao ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Diagnostic Value ◽  
Ca 125 ◽  
Adnexal Masses ◽  
Risk Of Malignancy ◽  
Risk Of Malignancy Index

Evaluation of Adnexal Masses-Correlation of Clinical, Sonological and Histological Findings in Adnexal Masses

2020 ◽  
Vol 22 (4) ◽  
pp. 199-202
Author(s):  
Manisha Acharya ◽  
P Kumar ◽  
BB Shrestha ◽  
S Shrestha ◽  
R Amatya ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Predictive Value ◽  
Adnexal Mass ◽  
Diagnostic Value ◽  
Mean Value ◽  
Ca 125 ◽  
Histopathological Diagnosis ◽  
Adnexal Masses ◽  
Risk Of Malignancy ◽  
Risk Of Malignancy Index ◽  
Clinical Records

Adnexal mass is a common clinical finding in gynaecological practice. The study aims to find out the diagnostic value of clinical examination, ultrasonography and Ca-125 and its correlation, using Risk of Malignancy Index with histopathological diagnosis in adnexal masses. Clinical records were retrieved of women who had surgical management for adnexal mass in the last 2 years duration. Based on the data, Risk of Malignancy Index values were calculated. It was then compared with histopathological diagnosis. Out of 66 patients, 56 patients had benign tumor and 10 patients had malignancy. The Risk of Malignancy Index values of each patient was calculated which ranged from 8 to 2205 with mean value of 425.52 (SD±41.8). Risk of Malignancy Index sensitivity was 70%, specificity was 96.42%, positive predictive value was 77.78%, and negative predictive value was 95.83%. Risk of Malignancy Index is a reliable diagnostic tool in differentiating benign from malignant adnexal masses.

scholarly journals Role of human epididymis protein 4 for detection of ovarian carcinoma in adnexal masses: A pilot study

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nidhi Bansal ◽  
A. Suneja ◽  
K. Guleria ◽  
N. B. Vaid ◽  
K. Mishra ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Diagnostic Accuracy ◽  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
Ca 125 ◽  
Serum Samples ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Adnexal Masses ◽  
Good Discriminator ◽  
Risk Of Malignancy ◽  
Risk Of Malignancy Index ◽  
Benign Tumours

Introduction: HE4 is a novel tumour biomarker used for early diagnosis of ovarian cancer. This study evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of HE4 alone and in combination with CA125, risk of malignancy index (RMI), risk of malignancy algorithm (ROMA). Methods: It was a cross sectional study conducted recruiting 88 women with adnexal masses who were planned for surgery. After baseline work up and ultrasound examination, serum samples were collected for estimation of CA 125 and HE4 levels. Serum HE4 levels were estimated using ELISA kit. RMI and ROMA score were calculated and diagnostic accuracy of HE4, CA 125, RMI, ROMA and their combination were compared. Cut off for HE4 and ROMA score were calculated using ROC curve. Results: Of 88 subjects, 66 were analyzed with 19 malignant (including 5 LMP) and 47 benign cases. The median value of HE4 among malignant cases was found to be significantly higher than among the benign cases. PPV and NPV of HE4 at a cut off 130.8 pMol/ml was 85.7% and 77.9% respectively. Highest PPV (88.9%) with acceptable NPV (80.7%) was found with ROMA followed by HE4 (PPV 85.7%; NPV 77.97%), RMI (PPV 76.92%; NPV 83%) and CA125 (PPV 52%; NPV 80.85%). Conclusion: HE4 levels were lower in Indian population both in malignant and benign tumours as compared to other studies. HE4 is a good discriminator and gives best accuracy when it is combined with CA125 in a logistic algorithm, ROMA.

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>

scholarly journals Evaluation of the risk malignancy index diagnostic value in patients with adnexal masses

2011 ◽  
Vol 68 (7) ◽  
pp. 589-593 ◽  
Author(s):  
Milan Terzic ◽  
Jelena Dotlic ◽  
Ivana Likic-Ladjevic ◽  
Jasmina Atanackovic ◽  
Nebojsa Ladjevic
Keyword(s):  
Predictive Value ◽  
Menopausal Status ◽  
Diagnostic Value ◽  
Gynecologic Malignancies ◽  
Adnexal Masses ◽  
Average Value ◽  
Risk Of Malignancy ◽  
Risk Of Malignancy Index ◽  
Practice Methods ◽  
Sensitivity Specificity

Background/Aim. Ovarian cancer is the leading cause of death from gynecologic malignancies. Risk of malignancy index (RMI) is recommended in assessment of patients with adnexal masses. The aim of this study was to verify the effectiveness of the RMI in the discrimination between benign lesions and malignant adnexal masses in clinical practice. Methods. Ultrasounds were performed for all the patients and menopausal status, CA125 level and calculated RMI were defined. All the patients were divided into 3 groups depending on RMI (< 25, 25-200, > 200). After operations all adnexal masses were analyzed histopathologically (HP) and then sensitivity, specificity and predictive value of RMI were calculated. Results. Out of a total of 81 patients involved benign tumor had 51 (62.96%) and malignant 30 (37.04%) of the patients. The average value of CA125 in the group of patients with benign adnexal masses was 68.3 U/mL and in the group of patients with malignant adnexal masses it was 581.95 U/mL. In the group of patients with benign adnexal masses the average RMI was 284.9 and in the group of patients with malignant adnexal masses RMI was 469.2. All the results showed a positive correlation between both HP categories and RMI categories. The more malignant HP result produced higher RMI and the cut off value was RMI = 200. Sensitivity of RMI was 83.33%, specificity was 94.12%, positive predictive value was 89.29% and negative predictive value was 90.57%. Conclusion. Our study showed that RMI is very reliable in differentiation benign from malignant adnexal masses.

scholarly journals Evaluation of Probably Benign Adnexal Masses in Postmenopausal Women

2017 ◽  
Vol 39 (05) ◽  
pp. 229-234
Author(s):  
Burcu Karakaya ◽  
Emre Ozgu ◽  
Hatice Kansu ◽  
Ozlem Evliyaoglu ◽  
Esma Sarikaya ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Postmenopausal Women ◽  
Adnexal Mass ◽  
Ca 125 ◽  
Benign Tumors ◽  
Adnexal Masses ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Risk Of Malignancy ◽  
Risk Of Malignancy Index ◽  
Index 2 ◽  
Malignancy Potential

Background Preoperatively identification of malignancy potential of a postmenopausal adnexal masses is important. Aim To evaluate the effectiveness of the Risk of Malignancy Index-2 in presumably benign adnexal masses in postmenopausal women. Study Design Retrospective, observational study. Methods 119 women with postmenopausal adnexal masses with a preliminary diagnosis of benign tumors according to the Risk of Malignancy Index-2 were included. Age, duration of menopause, ultrasonographic findings, and serum CA-125 levels were recorded preoperatively. The definitive diagnosis was based on postoperative histopathological examination. Results Of 119 adnexal mass, 10 were malignant and 109 were benign. There was no statistically significant difference with regard to age and tumor size between the groups. The two significant ultrasonographic parameter between groups were the presence of solid area in the mass and bilaterality. Moreover, if the cut off point for serum CA-125 was adjusted to 14.75 IU/mL according to ROC curve, a sensitivity value of 80% and a specificity value of 72% could be achieved to discriminate benign and malign cysts. Conclusion In the differential diagnosis of benign and malignant adnexal masses in postmenopausal women, the presence of a solid component, bilaterallity based on ultrasonography and high CA-125 values may be used as discriminative criteria. There is no direct relation between the size of the adnexal mass and malignancy potential. Therefore, in the malignancy indexes of postmenopausal women, we recommend lower cut-off values of CA-125 to increase the sensitivity of preoperative evaluation tests without having a great impact on negative predictive values.

scholarly journals ONCOGYNECOLOGICAL ASPECTS ОF ADNEXAL MASSES

2013 ◽  
Vol 68 (8) ◽  
pp. 9-13 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. S. Gasparov ◽  
K. I. Zhordania ◽  
Yu. G. Payanidi ◽  
E. D. Dubinskaya
Keyword(s):  
Malignant Tumors ◽  
Menopausal Status ◽  
Pelvic Mass ◽  
Serous Cystadenoma ◽  
Ca 125 ◽  
Adnexal Masses ◽  
Risk Of Malignancy ◽  
Risk Of Malignancy Index ◽  
Benign Ovarian Tumors ◽  
Reproductive Aged Women

Adnexal masses are frequently found in both symptomatic and asymptomatic women. The frequency of them is 7,8% in reproductive aged women and 2,5–18% in postmenopausal patients. Aim: to investigate clinical significance of the Risk of Malignancy Index (RMI) and to compare it with histological findings in patients with adnexal masses. Patients and methods: 345 patients with adnexal masses were evaluated. Depending on the menopausal status, serum CA-125 level and ultrasonographic findings RMI scores were calculated for each of patients. Results: according to RMI all the patients were divided in to two groups: first group — 283 (62%) of patients with RMI less then 200 and the second group — 52 (38%) women with RMI more then 200. The patients of the second group were referred to the oncologist. Among the patients with RMI 200, 137 (48,4%) endometriomas, 73 (25,8%) serous cystadenoma, 45 (15,9%) dermoid cysts, 22 (7,8%) paraovarian cysts, 2 (0,7%) adenocarcinoma were detected after histological examination. In patients with RMI 200, 25% of benign ovarian tumors, 34,6% of borderline and 40,4% of malignant tumors were verified. Conclusions: RMI when used in the presence of a pelvic mass is a useful triage tool to determine those women who should be referred to a gynaecological oncologist. During laparoscopy, in cases of intraoperative malignancy suspicion staging should be performed: videorecord of the surgery, biopsy of the adnexal mass and contralateral ovary, biopsy of the omentum and peritoneum, and aspiration of the peritoneal fluid for cytological examination.

scholarly journals Role of risk of malignancy index 4 in evaluation of adnexal masses

2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (9) ◽  
pp. 3818
Author(s):  
Amarjeet Kaur ◽  
Sujata Sharma ◽  
Sohan Singh
Keyword(s):  
Predictive Value ◽  
Malignant Disease ◽  
Adnexal Mass ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Benign Disease ◽  
Ca 125 ◽  
P Value ◽  
Adnexal Masses ◽  
Risk Of Malignancy ◽  
Risk Of Malignancy Index

Background: The discrimination between benign and malignant adnexal masses is important for clinical management and surgical planning in such patients. Various combined methods of evaluation adnexal mass have also been proposed. Risk of malignancy index (RMI) is a combined parameter which is simple, preclinical and highly sensitive, and more specific. Risk of malignancy index 4 (RMI 4) is calculated as a product of ultrasound score (U)×menopausal score (M)×CA 125×tumor size. Objective of this study was to determine if the RMI (RMI 4) can distinguish between benign and malignant adnexal masses.Methods: A prospective study was conducted on 30 women with an adnexal mass presenting in the OPD and emergency and RMI-4 calculated. Cut off level of 450 was set to differentiate between benign and malignant mass.Results: In this study, the value of RMI-4 is less than 450 in 17 patients with benign disease and 3 patients with malignant disease. The value is more than 450 in 2 patients with benign disease and 8 patients with malignant disease. RMI-4 >450 had a sensitivity of 72.73% and specificity is 89.47%. The positive predictive value is 80% and negative predictive value is 85%. The p-value for RMI-4 in this study is 0.001 which is highly significant.Conclusions: RMI is a reliable, simple, easy to use and cost-effective method in differentiating benign from malignant adnexal masses.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document