Ali MN, Habib D, Hassanien AI, Abbas AM. Comparison of the four malignancy risk indices in the discrimination of malignant ovarian masses: A cross-sectional study.
J Gynecol Obstet Hum Reprod 2020;
50:101986. [PMID:
33197624 DOI:
10.1016/j.jogoh.2020.101986]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/23/2020] [Revised: 11/06/2020] [Accepted: 11/10/2020] [Indexed: 11/27/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the accuracy of the four malignancy risk indices to distinguish benign from malignant ovarian masses MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was an observational cross-sectional study conducted on 155 patients between January 2016 and January 2019. Women with ovarian masses planned for surgical management were recruited from the outpatient Gynecology clinic of the hospital. The risk of malignancy index (RMI 1-4) was calculated for all women with ovarian masses. Biopsies obtained from the ovarian masses after the surgical intervention was sent to the pathology lab for histopathological examination. The histopathologic diagnosis of the ovarian masses was considered the gold standard for diagnosis.
RESULTS
The participants' mean age in the group of patients with benign masses was 33.50 ± 14.53 years versus 45.09 ± 13.67 years in the malignant group. The two most prominent features in the malignant group were solid areas in 85.3 % of malignant masses and about 91.2 % of malignant masses showing size <7 cm in their largest diameter. The RMI's most sensitive individual parameter was the CA-125 level, while the lowest sensitivity was for the menopausal status. RMI 2 had the highest sensitivity of 76.47 %, while RMI 1 and 3 had the highest specificity, 92.56 %. RMI 2 had the highest AUC, 0.83.
CONCLUSIONS
RMI 2 is a simple and reliable tool and had the best performance among all RMIs in benign discrimination from malignant ovarian masses with high sensitivity and accuracy.
Collapse