Comparison of 4 Risk-of-Malignancy Indexes in the Preoperative Evaluation of Patients With Pelvic Masses: A Prospective Study

Yorito Yamamoto, Aki Tsuchida, Takashi Ushiwaka, Ryuhei Nagai, Mitsuhiro Matsumoto, Junko Komatsu, Hiromi Kinoshita, Susumu Minami, Kazutoshi Hayashi
{"title":"Comparison of 4 Risk-of-Malignancy Indexes in the Preoperative Evaluation of Patients With Pelvic Masses: A Prospective Study","authors":"Yorito Yamamoto,&nbsp;Aki Tsuchida,&nbsp;Takashi Ushiwaka,&nbsp;Ryuhei Nagai,&nbsp;Mitsuhiro Matsumoto,&nbsp;Junko Komatsu,&nbsp;Hiromi Kinoshita,&nbsp;Susumu Minami,&nbsp;Kazutoshi Hayashi","doi":"10.1016/j.cogc.2014.11.001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>The aim of this study was to validate the risk-of-malignancy index (RMI) incorporating menopausal status, serum CA 125 levels, and imaging findings for discriminating benign from malignant pelvic masses and to evaluate the ability of 4 different RMIs.</p></div><div><h3>Patients and Methods</h3><p>This is a prospective study of 296 women admitted to the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology of Kochi Health Sciences Center, between September 2011 and April 2014, for surgical exploration of pelvic masses. The RMI 1, 2, 3, and 4 methods were calculated for all patients together with the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>The sensitivity of RMIs 1, 2, 3, and 4 was 73.0%, 81.1%, 73.0%, and 77.0%, respectively, and the specificity was 93.7%, 89.6%, 93.7%, and 92.3%, respectively. The RMI 2 was significantly better at predicting malignancy than RMIs 1 3; however, there was no statistically significant difference in performance of RMIs 2 4.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>The RMI method is a valuable and applicable method in diagnosing pelvic masses with high risk of malignancy and a simple technique that can be used in gynecology clinics and less-specialized centers.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":100274,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Ovarian and Other Gynecologic Cancer","volume":"7 1","pages":"Pages 8-12"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2014-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.cogc.2014.11.001","citationCount":"15","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Ovarian and Other Gynecologic Cancer","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212955314000623","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 15

Abstract

Background

The aim of this study was to validate the risk-of-malignancy index (RMI) incorporating menopausal status, serum CA 125 levels, and imaging findings for discriminating benign from malignant pelvic masses and to evaluate the ability of 4 different RMIs.

Patients and Methods

This is a prospective study of 296 women admitted to the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology of Kochi Health Sciences Center, between September 2011 and April 2014, for surgical exploration of pelvic masses. The RMI 1, 2, 3, and 4 methods were calculated for all patients together with the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value.

Results

The sensitivity of RMIs 1, 2, 3, and 4 was 73.0%, 81.1%, 73.0%, and 77.0%, respectively, and the specificity was 93.7%, 89.6%, 93.7%, and 92.3%, respectively. The RMI 2 was significantly better at predicting malignancy than RMIs 1 3; however, there was no statistically significant difference in performance of RMIs 2 4.

Conclusion

The RMI method is a valuable and applicable method in diagnosing pelvic masses with high risk of malignancy and a simple technique that can be used in gynecology clinics and less-specialized centers.

盆腔肿块术前评价中4项恶性肿瘤风险指标的比较:一项前瞻性研究
本研究的目的是验证恶性肿瘤风险指数(RMI),包括绝经状态、血清CA 125水平和影像学检查结果,以区分良性和恶性盆腔肿块,并评估4种不同RMI的能力。患者和方法本研究是一项前瞻性研究,纳入2011年9月至2014年4月在高知健康科学中心妇产科就诊的296名女性,进行盆腔肿块手术探查。计算所有患者的RMI 1、2、3和4方法的灵敏度、特异性、阳性预测值和阴性预测值。结果RMIs 1、2、3、4的敏感性分别为73.0%、81.1%、73.0%、77.0%,特异性分别为93.7%、89.6%、93.7%、92.3%。RMI 2在预测恶性肿瘤方面明显优于RMI 13;然而,在RMIs的表现上没有统计学上的显著差异24。结论RMI法是一种诊断高危恶性盆腔肿块的有价值和适用的方法,技术简单,可在妇科门诊和专科较低的中心应用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信