Medicina (2020-12-01)

Early-Stage Ovarian Malignancy Score versus Risk of Malignancy Indices: Accuracy and Clinical Utility for Preoperative Diagnosis of Women with Adnexal Masses

  • Phichayut Phinyo,
  • Jayanton Patumanond,
  • Panprapha Saenrungmuaeng,
  • Watcharin Chirdchim,
  • Tanyong Pipanmekaporn,
  • Apichat Tantraworasin,
  • Theera Tongsong,
  • Charuwan Tantipalakorn

Journal volume & issue
Vol. 56, no. 702
p. 702


Read online

Background and objectives: To compare the diagnostic accuracy and clinical utility of the Early-stage Ovarian Malignancy (EOM) score with the Risk of Malignancy Index (RMI) in the presurgical assessment of women presenting with adnexal masses. Materials and Methods: A secondary analysis was carried out in a retrospective cohort of women who presented with an adnexal mass and were scheduled for surgery at Phrapokklao Hospital between September 2013 and December 2017. The clinical characteristics, ultrasonographic features of the masses, and preoperative CA-125 levels were recorded. The EOM and the RMI score were calculated and compared in terms of accuracy and clinical utility. Decision curve analysis (DCA), which examined the net benefit (NB) of applying the EOM and the RMI in practice at a range of threshold probabilities, was presented. Results: In this study, data from 270 patients were analyzed. Fifty-four (20.0%) women in the sample had early-stage ovarian cancer. All four RMI versions demonstrated a lower sensitivity for the detection of patients with early-stage ovarian cancer compared to an EOM score ≥ 15. An EOM ≥ 15 resulted in a higher proportion of net true positive or NB than all versions of the RMIs from a threshold probability of 5% to 30%. Conclusions: It also showed a higher capability to reduce the number of inappropriate referrals than the RMIs at a threshold probability between 5% and 30%. The EOM score showed higher diagnostic sensitivity and has the potential to be clinically more useful than the RMIs to triage women who present with adnexal masses for referral to oncologic gynecologists. Further external validation is required to support our findings.