IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v20y2023i1p888-d1024190.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparisons of Effectiveness in Differentiating Benign from Malignant Ovarian Masses between Conventional and Modified Risk of Malignancy Index (RMI)

Author

Listed:
  • Charuwan Tantipalakorn

    (Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine, Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai 50200, Thailand)

  • Dangcheewan Tinnangwattana

    (Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine, Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai 50200, Thailand)

  • Thitikarn Lerthiranwong

    (Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine, Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai 50200, Thailand)

  • Suchaya Luewan

    (Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine, Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai 50200, Thailand)

  • Theera Tongsong

    (Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine, Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai 50200, Thailand)

Abstract

Objective: To compare the predictive performance in differentiating benign from malignant ovarian masses between the modified risk malignancy index (RMI) and the conventional RMI (RMI-1 and RMI-2). Methods: Women scheduled for elective surgery because of adnexal masses were recruited to undergo pelvic sonography within 24 h before surgery to assess the sonographic characteristics of the masses, focusing on loculi, solid part, ascites, bilateralness, papillary projection, and color flow mapping (CFM). Preoperative CA-125 levels were also measured. Modified RMI, RMI-1, and RMI-2 systems were used to predict malignant masses. The gold standard was pathological or intraoperative diagnosis. Results: A total of 342 ovarian masses, benign: 243 (71.1%); malignant: 99 (28.9%), meeting the inclusion criteria were analyzed. The sensitivity and the specificity of the modified RMI (87.9% and 81.9%) were significantly higher than those of RMI-1 (74.7% and 84.4%), and RMI-2 (79.8% and 81.1%, respectively). Based on ROC curves, the area under the curves were 0.930, 0.881 and 0.882 for modified RMI, RMI-1 and RMI-2, respectively. Conclusion: Modified RMI had better predictive performance than the conventional RMI in differentiating between benign and malignant ovarian masses. Modified RMI may be useful to help general gynecologists or practitioners to triage patients with an adnexal mass, especially in settings of low resources.

Suggested Citation

  • Charuwan Tantipalakorn & Dangcheewan Tinnangwattana & Thitikarn Lerthiranwong & Suchaya Luewan & Theera Tongsong, 2023. "Comparisons of Effectiveness in Differentiating Benign from Malignant Ovarian Masses between Conventional and Modified Risk of Malignancy Index (RMI)," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(1), pages 1-11, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:20:y:2023:i:1:p:888-:d:1024190
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/20/1/888/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/20/1/888/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:20:y:2023:i:1:p:888-:d:1024190. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.