Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
S. Coburn, F. Bray, Mark Sherman, B. Trabert (2017)International patterns and trends in ovarian cancer incidence, overall and by histologic subtype
International Journal of Cancer, 140
Maitray Patel (2006)Practical approach to the adnexal mass.
Radiologic clinics of North America, 44 6
Lil Valentin, L. Ameye, D. Jurković, U. Metzger, F. Lécuru, S. Huffel, D. Timmerman (2006)Which extrauterine pelvic masses are difficult to correctly classify as benign or malignant on the basis of ultrasound findings and is there a way of making a correct diagnosis?
Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology, 27
E. Andersen, A. Knudsen, P. Rix, B. Johansen (2003)Risk of malignancy index in the preoperative evaluation of patients with adnexal masses.
Gynecologic oncology, 90 1
Rujuta Javdekar, N. Maitra (2015)Risk of Malignancy Index (RMI) in Evaluation of Adnexal Mass
The Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology of India, 65
(2008)Clinically suspected adnexal mass. American College of Radiology Web site
J. Escudero, J. Augé, X. Filella, A. Torné, J. Pahisa, R. Molina (2011)Comparison of serum human epididymis protein 4 with cancer antigen 125 as a tumor marker in patients with malignant and nonmalignant diseases.
Clinical chemistry, 57 11
N. Akdeniz, U. Kuyumcuoğlu, A. Kale, M. Erdemoğlu, F. Çaça (2009)Risk of malignancy index for adnexal masses.
European journal of gynaecological oncology, 30 2
S. Ulusoy, O. Akbayir, C. Numanoğlu, N. Ulusoy, E. Odabaş, A. Gulkilik (2007)The risk of malignancy index in discrimination of adnexal masses
International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics, 96
G. Ricci, G. Zito, L. Fischer-Tamaro (2011)Management of the adnexal mass.
Obstetrics and gynecology, 118 4
M. Rossing, K. Wicklund, K. Cushing-Haugen, N. Weiss (2010)Predictive value of symptoms for early detection of ovarian cancer.
Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 102 4
M. Terzic, J. Dotlic, I. Ladjević, J. Atanacković, N. Ladjevic (2011)Evaluation of the risk malignancy index diagnostic value in patients with adnexal masses.
Vojnosanitetski pregled, 68 7
K. Al-Musalhi, Manal Al-Kindi, F. Ramadhan, Thuraya Al-Rawahi, Khalsa Al-Hatali, W. Mula-Abed (2015)Validity of Cancer Antigen-125 (CA-125) and Risk of Malignancy Index (RMI) in the Diagnosis of Ovarian Cancer.
Oman medical journal, 30 6
B. Calster, B. Calster, D. Timmerman, Lil Valentin, A. Mcindoe, S. Ghaem-Maghami, A. Testa, I. Vergote, T. Bourne, T. Bourne (2012)Triaging women with ovarian masses for surgery: observational diagnostic study to compare RCOG guidelines with an International Ovarian Tumour Analysis (IOTA) group protocol
BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, 119
R. Jha, S. Karki (2008)Histological pattern of ovarian tumors and their age distribution.
Nepal Medical College journal : NMCJ, 10 2
Xiaodong Liao, Guo Huang, Chao Gao, Guangda Wang (2014)A meta-analysis of serum cancer antigen 125 array for diagnosis of ovarian cancer in Chinese.
Journal of cancer research and therapeutics, 10 Suppl
S. Orsulic (1993)Ovarian Cancer
British Journal of Cancer, 68
V. McGuire, P. Hartge, L. Liao, R. Sinha, L. Bernstein, A. Canchola, G. Anderson, M. Stefanick, A. Whittemore (2016)Parity and Oral Contraceptive Use in Relation to Ovarian Cancer Risk in Older Women
Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention, 25
Y. Chia, D. Marsden, G. Robertson, N. Hacker (2008)Triage of ovarian masses
Australian and New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 48
Jingzhe Liu, Yu-feng Xu, Jichen Wang (2007)Ultrasonography, computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging for diagnosis of ovarian carcinoma.
European journal of radiology, 62 3
J. Bindal, Sangeeta Bankey (2017)Prevalence of ovarian tumours among ovarian mass lesions in Gajra Raja Medical College, Gwalior, India
International journal of reproduction, contraception, obstetrics and gynecology, 6
Watcharada Moolthiya, P. Yuenyao (2009)The risk of malignancy index (RMI) in diagnosis of ovarian malignancy.
Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP, 10 5
Jay Toulany, S. Parlee, C. Sinal, K. Slayter, S. Mcneil, K. GoralskiThis Work Is Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-noncommercial 4.0 International License
Brandon Rein, Sajal Gupta, R. Dada, J. Safi, C. Michener, A. Agarwal (2011)Potential Markers for Detection and Monitoring of Ovarian Cancer
Journal of Oncology, 2011
(2017)Exceptional Review) 2017-Ovarian Cancer: Recognition and initial management (2011) NICE guideline CG122. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence
T. Nazneen, S. Begum, T. Mahmud, F. Khatoon, F. Islam, M. Amatullah (2021)Preoperative Analysis of CA-I25 and its Relation with Histopathological Study in Ovarian Tumours.
Mymensingh medical journal : MMJ, 30 2
A. Al-Niaimi, M. Ahmed, Chase Petersen (2012)Epithelial ovarian cancer.
Obstetrics and gynecology clinics of North America, 39 2
In the present study, the Risk Malignancy Index (RMI) was calculated based on menopausal status, ultrasound (US) findings and serum biological cancer antigen 125 (CA‑125) levels as a scoring system in Libyan females with ovarian masses (OMs) to differentiate between benign and malignant tumors. A total of 51 females with OMs referred to the Gynaecology Department of the National Cancer Institute in Misurata (Libya) between January 2019 and December 2020 were retrospectively reviewed for diagnostic testing. Clinicopathological and demographic data were obtained from patient records. A cut‑off point of RMI=200 was used to differentiate between benign and malignant tumors. The mean age of the patients was 47 years (range, 19‑90 years) and 60% of the patients were premenopausal. Examination of the four RMI indices and disease status indicated that the association with the US score (P<0.0001) and with CA‑125 (P=0.017) was highly significant. However, the age at diagnosis and menopausal status did not have any significant association with the disease status. The RMI with a cut‑off point of 200 had a sensitivity and specificity of 87.5 and 90.7%, respectively, and a positive and negative predictive value of 63.6 and 97.5%, respectively. The association between the RMI and disease status was highly significant (P<0.0001). In conclusion, the RMI appears to be a reliable, simple and cost‑effective tool for clinical differentiation between benign and malignant OMs. This may help to improve the optimal diagnosis and planning of an individualized treatment strategy. However, given the small sample size of the cohort, further validation using larger cohorts in other settings is recommended.
Molecular and Clinical Oncology – Spandidos Publications
Published: Jul 5, 2022
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.