Journal of SAFOMS

Register      Login

VOLUME 6 , ISSUE 2 ( July-December, 2018 ) > List of Articles

Original Article

Comparing the Diagnostic Accuracy of Symptom Index and the Risk of Malignancy Index with Histopathological Outcomes in Adnexal Masses

Amita Ray

Keywords : Adnexal mass, Risk of malignancy index 1, Symptom index, Tests of diagnostic accuracy

Citation Information : Ray A. Comparing the Diagnostic Accuracy of Symptom Index and the Risk of Malignancy Index with Histopathological Outcomes in Adnexal Masses. J South Asian Feder Menopause Soc 2018; 6 (2):91-96.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10032-1147

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 01-12-2018

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2018; The Author(s).


Aim: Accurate identification of the nature of an adnexal mass can ensure optimum management and with this aim in mind we applied tests of diagnostic accuracy to the symptom index (SI) and the risk of malignancy index 1 (RMI-1) separately and in combination to differentiate between benign and malignant adnexal masses in women admitted for surgery at three different medical college institutions in India. This was done to frame a referral policy for women with adnexal masses, facilitate triaging and for counseling the woman and her family. Methods: All the participants were given a survey to complete based on which the participants were either SI positive or negative. Ultrasonographic parameters and CA-125 levels were used to calculate the RMI for each participant. Using Histopathology as the gold standard we compared the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), positive and negative likelihood ratios and diagnostic accuracy of the SI and RMI separately and in combination. Results: When compared to the SI the RMI rates higher in all tests of diagnostic accuracy. Sensitivity (SI—41.4% RMI—77.8%) Specificity(SI—73.24%, RMI—80.6%), PPV(SI—38.71% RMI—60.0%), NPV(SI—75.36% RMI—90.6%) and diagnostic accuracy (SI—64% RMI—79.8%) diagnostic accuracy does not improve when the tools are combined. Conclusion: The RMI can be used as a triaging tool and also for framing a referral policy for adnexal masses. For counseling patients with adnexal masses, the RMI through a better option than the SI does not have a good positive or negative likelihood ratio to either rule out or rule in a diagnosis of malignancy in individual cases. Clinical significance: Menopausal status, CA-125, and ultrasound features are much more predictive of the nature of an adnexal mass when compared to symptoms making RMI a better tool for triaging and referral and counseling women with adnexal masses

PDF Share
  1. Gillis CR, Hole DJ, et al. Medical audit, cancer registration, and survival in ovarian cancer. Lancet 1991;337:611-612.
  2. Eisenkop SM, Spirtos NM, et al. The impact of subspecialty training on the management of advanced ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol 1992;47:203-209.
  3. Kehoe S, Powell J, et al. The influence of the operating surgeon's specialisation on patient survival in ovarian carcinoma. Br J Cancer 1994;70:1014-1017.
  4. Goff BA, Mandel LS, et al. Development of an ovarian cancer symptom index: Possibilities for earlier detection. Cancer 2007;109:221-227.
  5. Jacobs I, Oram D, et al. A risk of malignancy index incorporating CA-125, ultrasound and menopausal status for the accurate preoperative diagnosis of ovarian cancer. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1990;97:922-929.
  6. Irwig L, Bossuyt P, et al. Designing studies to ensure that estimates of test accuracy are transferable. BMJ 2002;324(7338):669-671.
  7. Raslich MA, Markert RJ, et al. Selecting and interpreting diagnostic tests. Biochemia Medica 2007;17(2):139-270.
  8. Bossuyt PM, Reitsma JB, et al. The STARD statement for reporting studies of diagnostic accuracy: explanation and elaboration. Clin Chem 2003;49:7-18.
  9. Wilczynski NL. Quality of reporting of diagnostic accuracy studies: no change since STARD statement publication-before-and-after study. Radiology 2008;248(3):817-823.
  10. Obeidat B, Amarin Z, et al. Risk of malignancy index in the preoperative evaluation of pelvic masses. International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics 2004;85(3):255-258.
  11. Yamamoto Y, Yamada R, et al. Comparison of four malignancy risk indices in the preoperative evaluation of patients with pelvic masses. European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology 2009;144(2):163-167.
  12. van den Akker PA, Aalders AL, et al. Evaluation of the risk of malignancy index in daily clinical management of adnexal masses. Gynecol Oncol 2010;116(3):384-388.
  13. Manjunath A, Sujatha K, et al. Comparison of three risk of malignancy indices in evaluation of pelvic masses. Gynecol Oncol 2001;81(2):225-229.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.