Role of risk of malignancy index for evaluation and preoperative detection of pelvic malignancies compared with pathological diagnosis

Beenish Yousseff, Mariya Amin Qurieshi, Nadiya Yousseff


Background: Risk of malignancy index (RMI) is widely employed in the developed world in predicting malignant pelvic masses. The present study designed to confirm the effectiveness of the RMI to identify cases with high potential of ovarian malignancy, among patients with an adnexal mass.

Methods: This was a cross-sectional study was conducted over a period of two years in a government run tertiary healthcare centre of Srinagar, Kashmir, Jammu and Kashmir, India. Study included 72 patients who underwent surgery due to adnexal mass and were evaluated for ovarian malignancy by comparing RMI with histopathological diagnosis. Data collected included demographic characteristics, ultrasound findings, menopausal status, CA125 levels, and histopathological diagnosis. For each patient, RMI was calculated as per the standard formula.

Results: Analysis revealed ultrasound score had the highest sensitivity of 72.7%, while an RMI score ≥250 had the highest specificity of 88.5%. The latter also had the highest positive predictive value of 50%, while negative predictive value was highest for an ultrasound score of 3 (94%). The cut off points based on ROC analysis demonstrates significant predictive ability for ovarian cancer for both RMI and CA125 with AUC to the tune of 82.9% and 80.1% respectively.

Conclusions: RMI is a simple score system which can be applied directly into clinical practice and might be of value in pre-operative assessment, and hence selecting patients who need surgical team including gynecologic oncologists.


Adnexal mass, CA-125, Risk of malignancy index, Sensitivity, Specificity

Full Text:



Steliarova-Foucher EO, Callaghan M, Ferlay J, Masuyer E, Comber H. European cancer observatory: cancer incidence, mortality, prevalence and survival in Europe. Version 1.0 European Network of Cancer Registries, International Agency for Research on Cancer; 2012.

Howlader N, Noone AM, Krapcho M, Garshell J, Neyman N, Altekruse SF, et al. SEER Cancer Statistics Review, 1975-2010, National Cancer Institute. 2015.

McGowan L. Patterns of care in carcinoma of ovary. Cancer. 1993;71:628-63.

Bristow RE, Tomacruz RS, Armstrong DK, Trimble EL, Montz FJ. Survival effect of maximal cytoreductive surgery for advanced ovarian carcinoma during the platinum era: a meta-analysis. J Clin Oncol. 2002;20(5):1248-59.

Jacobs I, Oram D, Fairbanks J, Turner J, Frost C, Grudzinskas JG. A risk of malignancy index incorporating CA 125, ultrasound and menopausal status for the accurate preoperative diagnosis of ovarian cancer. Int J Obstet Gynaecol. 1990;97(10):922-9.

Tingulstad S, Hagen B, Skjeldestad FE. Evaluation of a risk of malignancy index based on serum CA125, ultrasound findings and menopausal status in the pre-operative diagnosis of pelvic masses. Int J Obstet Gynaecol. 1996;10(8):826-31.

Hakansson F, Hogdall EV, Nedergaard L, Lundvall L, Engelholm SA, Pedersen AT, et al. Risk of malignancy index used as a diagnostic tool in a tertiary centre for patients with a pelvic mass. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2012;91:496-502.

Aziz AB, Najmi N. Is Risk malignancy index a useful tool for predicting malignant ovarian masses in developing countries?. Obstet Gynecol Inter. 2015;2015:951256.

Rein BJ, Gupta S, Dada R, Safi J, Michener C, Agarwal A. Potential markers for detection and monitoring of ovarian cancer. J Oncol. 2011;2011.

Myers ER, Bastian LA, Havrilesky LJ, Kulasingam SL, Terplan MS, Cline KE, et al. Management of adnexal mass. evidence report/technology assessment no. 130 (prepared by the duke evidence-based practice center under contract no. 290-02-0025.). Agency Healthcare Res Quality, Rockville. 2006;130:145

Simsek HS, Tokmak A, Ozgu E, Doganay M, Danisman N, Erkaya S, et alRole of a risk of malignancy index in clinical approaches to adnexal masses. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2014;15(18):7793.

Rao JH. Risk of malignancy index in assessment of pelvic mass. Int J Biomed Res. 2014;l5(3):184-6.

Aslam N, Tailor A, Lawton F, Carr J, Savvas M Prospective evaluation of three different models for the pre-operative diagnosis of ovarian cancer. Br J Cancer. 2000;107:1347-53.

Manjunath AP, Pratapkumar, Sujatha K, Vani R Comparison of three risk of malignancy indices in evaluation of pelvic masses. Gynecol Oncol. 2001;81:225-9.

Geomini P, Kruitwagen R, Bremer GL, Cnossen J, Mol BW. The accuracy of risk scores in predicting ovarian malignancy: a systematic review. Obstet Gynecol. 2009;113(2):384-94.

Ashrafgangooei T, Rezaeezadeh M. Risk of malignancy index in preoperative evaluation of pelvic masses. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2011;12:1727-30.

Ma S, Shen K, Lang J. A risk of malignancy index in preoperative diagnosis of ovarian cancer. Chinese Med J. 2003;116(3):396-9.

Obeidat BR, Amarin ZO, Latimer JA, Crawford RA. Risk of malignancy index in the preoperative evaluation of pelvic masses. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 2004;85(3):255-8.

Andersen ES, Knudsen A, Rix P, Johansen B. Risk of malignancy index in the preoperative evaluation of patients with adnexal masses. Gynecol Oncol. 2003;90(1):109-12.

Chia YN, Marsden DE, Robertson G, Hacker NF. Triage of ovarian masses. Aust New Zealand J Obstet Gynaecol. 2008;48(3):322-8.

Moolthiya W, Yuenyao P. The risk of malignancy index (RMI) in diagnosis of ovarian malignancy. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2009;10(5):865.

Terzić M, Dotlić J, Likić-Lađević I, Atanacković J, Lađević N. Evaluation of the risk malignancy index diagnostic value in patients with adnexal masses. Vojnosanitetski Pregled. 2011;68(7):589-93.