Retrospective cohort study compares predictive performance of four RMIs in adnexal masses, suggesting effective preoperative risk stratification.
OBJECTIVES: To compare the predictive performance of four risk of malignancy index (RMI) in patients with adnexal masses. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This retrospective study included 703 patients who underwent surgery for adnexal masses. Preoperative ultrasonographic findings, menopausal status, and serum CA-125 levels were used to calculate RMI-1, -2, -3, and -4. Histopathology served as the reference standard. Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and overall accuracy were analyzed. RESULTS: Among 703 patients, 77.2% had benign lesions, 3.3% borderline tumors, and 19.5% malignant disease. RMI-1 demonstrated sensitivity 74.4%, specificity 91.3%, PPV 71.1%, NPV 92.4%; RMI-2 sensitivity 80.6%, specificity 86.2%, PPV 63.2%, NPV 93.8%; RMI-3 sensitivity 75.6%, specificity 90.1%, PPV 69.1%, NPV 92.6%; and RMI-4 sensitivity 78.8%, specificity 89.9%, PPV 69.9%, NPV 93.5%. ROC analysis showed areas under the curve of 0.900, 0.896, 0.893, and 0.893 for RMI-1 to RMI-4, respectively. RMI-1 had the highest specificity and overall accuracy, whereas RMI-2 achieved the highest sensitivity. Pairwise comparisons revealed statistically significant differences among RMIs. CONCLUSIONS: All four RMIs effectively differentiate benign from malignant adnexal masses. RMI-1 offers the highest overall accuracy and specificity, and RMI-2 the highest sensitivity. These indices provide valuable preoperative risk stratification to guide clinical management and referral to specialized care. Institutional resources should inform the choice of RMI.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ege et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: