Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2011 Sep;22(3):177-82.
doi: 10.3802/jgo.2011.22.3.177. Epub 2011 Sep 28.

Comparison of four malignancy risk indices in the detection of malignant ovarian masses

Erhan Aktürk  1 , Rıza Efendi Karaca, Ibrahim Alanbay, Murat Dede, Emre Karaşahin, Müfit Cemal Yenen, Iskender Başer
Affiliations

Comparison of four malignancy risk indices in the detection of malignant ovarian masses

Erhan Aktürk et al. J Gynecol Oncol. 2011 Sep.

Abstract

Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the ability of four risk of malignancy indices (RMI) to detect malignant ovarian tumors.

Methods: This is a prospective study of 100 women admitted to the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology of Gulhane Military Medicine Academy for surgical exploration of pelvic masses. To diagnose malignant ovarian tumors, the sensitivity, specificity, negative and positive predictive values and diagnostic accuracy of four RMIs (RMI 1, RMI 2, RMI 3, and RMI 4) were obtained.

Results: In our study we found that there is no statistically significant difference in the performance of four different RMIs in discriminating malignancy. We think that malignancy risk indices is more reliable than the menopausal status, serum CA-125 levels, ultrasound features and tumor size separately in detecting malignancy.

Conclusion: We concluded that any of the four malignancy risk indices described can be used for selection of cases for optimal therapy. These methods are simple techniques that can be used even in less-specialized gynecology clinics to facilitate the selection of cases for referral to an oncological unit.

Keywords: Ovarian cancer; Pelvic mass; Risk of malignancy index.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Receiver operator characteristic curve showing the performance of RMI 1, RMI 2, RMI 3, RMI 4, CA-125, tumor size, ultrasound score, and menopausal status. RMI, risk of malignancy index.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Gillis CR, Hole DJ, Still RM, Davis J, Kaye SB. Medical audit, cancer registration, and survival in ovarian cancer. Lancet. 1991;337:611–612. - PubMed
    1. Finkler NJ, Benacerraf B, Lavin PT, Wojciechowski C, Knapp RC. Comparison of serum CA-125, clinical impression, and ultrasound in the preoperative evaluation of ovarian masses. Obstet Gynecol. 1988;72:659–664. - PubMed
    1. Vasilev SA, Schlaerth JB, Campeau J, Morrow CP. Serum CA-125 levels in preoperative evaluation of pelvic masses. Obstet Gynecol. 1988;71:751–756. - PubMed
    1. Eisenkop SM, Spirtos NM, Montag TW, Nalick RH, Wang HJ. The impact of subspecialty training on the management of advanced ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 1992;47:203–209. - PubMed
    1. Kehoe S, Powell J, Wilson S, Woodman C. The influence of the operating surgeon's specialisation on patient survival in ovarian carcinoma. Br J Cancer. 1994;70:1014–1017. - PMC - PubMed