Journal of South Asian Federation of Obstetrics and Gynaecology

Register      Login

VOLUME 10 , ISSUE 2 ( April-June, 2018 ) > List of Articles

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Rethinking the Role of Serum Cancer Antigen 125 and Risk of Malignancy Index in Indian Women with Ovarian Masses: Newer Perspectives and Review of Literature

Pushpa Singh, Veena G Malla, Amita Tuteja

Keywords : Cancer antigen 125, Indian, Ovarian screening, Risk of malignancy index

Citation Information : Singh P, Malla VG, Tuteja A. Rethinking the Role of Serum Cancer Antigen 125 and Risk of Malignancy Index in Indian Women with Ovarian Masses: Newer Perspectives and Review of Literature. J South Asian Feder Obs Gynae 2018; 10 (2):110-117.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10006-1571

Published Online: 01-06-2018

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


Abstract

Background: Demographic, socioeconomic, and cultural factors account for variation in global incidence trends of ovarian malignancy. Indian cancer registry statistics revealed equally wide interstate variations and prompted us to rethink on variations in screening techniques between different population groups. The present study was undertaken to verify the feasibility and effectiveness of Risk of Malignancy Index (RMI) and cancer antigen (CA) 125 in women residing in North India and place their screening results in the context of literature relevant to geographic and ethnic variations. Materials and methods: The study is a retrospective review of patients attending a tertiary hospital in New Delhi between January 2009 and July 2011 with adnexal masses subsequently undergoing laparotomy. Information on demographic characteristics, ultrasound findings, menopausal status, CA-125, and histopathology was collected. The RMI scores were calculated and correlated with histopathological findings. Results: Mean age of participants (n = 78) was 33.8 years with an average delay of 16 months before the presentation. Seventy-three tumors turned out to be ovarian in origin. Of these, 63 were benign and 16 malignant. The CA-125 (>35 IU) was used to predict the malignant nature of tumor, with sensitivity of 75%, specificity of 76.2%, positive predictive value of 47.4%, and negative predictive value of 91.4%. In contrast, RMI (>200) had improved sensitivity of 87.5%, specificity of 91.3%, positive predictive value of 73.6%, and negative predictive value of 96.5%. Conclusion: The study demonstrated that CA-125 and RMI are feasible tools for distinguishing between benign and malignant ovarian masses for women residing in North India. Literature review revealed wide variation in performance of RMI in women living in the same geographic area and no correlations could be drawn due to paucity of data from different parts of the world. However, the ideology of individualized cut-offs for distinct ethnic and geographic groups needs additional research in future.


PDF Share
  1. Maheshwari A, Kumar N, Mahantshetty U. Gynecological cancers: a summary of published Indian data. South Asian J Cancer 2016 Jul-Sep;5(3):112-120.
  2. Torre LA, Bray F, Siegel RL, Ferlay J, Lortet-Tieulent J, Jemal A. Global cancer statistics, 2012. CA Cancer J Clin 2015 Mar;65(2):87-108.
  3. Hebbar S, Bharathi VK. Validation of a new ovarian malignancy suspicion index for preoperative evaluation of adnexal masses. Int J Reprod Contracept Obstet Gynecol 2017;6(1): 240-245.
  4. Murthy NS, Shalini S, Suman G, Pruthvish S, Mathew A. Changing trends in incidence of ovarian cancer—the Indian scenario. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 2009;10(6):1025-1030.
  5. Takiar R, Nadayil D, Nandakumar A. Projections of number of cancer cases in India (2010-2020) by cancer groups. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 2010;11(4):1045-1049.
  6. Stewart SL. Ovarian cancer incidence: current and comprehensive statistics, ovarian cancer-clinical and therapeutic perspectives, Farghaly SA, editor. InTech; 2012. ISBN: 978- 953-307-810-6.
  7. NCDIR-NCRP (ICMR). Three year report of population based cancer registries 2012-2014 [Internet] Bengaluru, India 2016 [cited 2017 April 26]. Available from: http://www.ncrpindia. org/ALL_NCRP_REPORTS/PBCR_REPORT_2012_2014/ ALL_CONTENT/Printed_Version.htm.
  8. NCDIR-NCRP (ICMR). Consolidated report of hospital based registries 2012-2014 [Internet] Bengaluru, India 2016 [cited 2017 April 26]. Available from: http://www.ncrpindia. org/ALL_NCRP_REPORTS/HBCR_REPORT_2012_2014/ ALL_CONTENT/Printed_Version.htm.
  9. Fitzmaurice C, Dicker D, Pain A, Hamavid H, Moradi-Lakeh M, MacIntyre MF, Allen C, Hansen G, Woodbrook R, Wolfe C, et al. The global burden of cancer 2013. JAMA Oncol 2015 Jul;1(4):505-527.
  10. Bast RC Jr, Badgwell D, Lu Z, Marquez R, Rosen D, Liu J, Baggerly KA, Atkinson EN, Skates S, Zhang Z, et al. New tumor markers: CA125 and beyond. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2005 Nov-Dec;15 (Suppl 3):274-281.
  11. Nguyen L, Cardenas-Goicoechea SJ, Gordon P, Curtin C, Momeni M, Chuang L, Fishman D. Biomarkers for early detection of ovarian cancer. Women's Health (Lond) 2013 Mar;9(2):171-185; quiz 86-87.
  12. Van Calster B, Timmerman D, Valentin L, McIndoe A, Ghaem- Maghami S, Testa AC, Vergote I, Bourne T. Triaging women with ovarian masses for surgery: observational diagnostic study to compare RCOG guidelines with an International Ovarian Tumour Analysis (IOTA) group protocol. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 2012 May;119(6):662-671.
  13. Givens V, Mitchell GE, Harraway-Smith C, Reddy A, Maness DL. Diagnosis and management of adnexal masses. Am Fam Physician 2009 Oct 15;80(8):815-820.
  14. Jacobs I, Oram D, Fairbanks J, Turner J, Frost C, Grudzinskas JG. 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 Oct;97(10):922-929.
  15. Tingulstad S, Hagen B, Skjeldestad FE, Onsrud M, Kiserud T, Halvorsen T, Nustad K. Evaluation of a risk of malignancy index based on serum CA125, ultrasound findings and menopausal status in the pre-operative diagnosis of pelvic masses. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1996 Aug;103(8):826-831.
  16. Tingulstad S, Hagen B, Skjeldestad FE, Halvorsen T, Nustad K, Onsrud M. The risk-of-malignancy index to evaluate potential ovarian cancers in local hospitals. Obstet Gynecol 1999 Mar;93(3):448-452.
  17. Yamamoto Y, Yamada R, Oguri H, Maeda N, Fukaya T. Comparison of four malignancy risk indices in the preoperative evaluation of patients with pelvic masses. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2009 Jun;144(2):163-167.
  18. Geomini P, Kruitwagen R, Bremer GL, Cnossen J, Mol BW. The accuracy of risk scores in predicting ovarian malignancy: a systematic review. Obstet Gynecol 2009 Feb;113(2 Pt 1): 384-394.
  19. Torres JC, Derchain SF, Faundes A, Gontijo RC, Martinez EZ, Andrade LA. Risk-of-malignancy index in preoperative evaluation of clinically restricted ovarian cancer. Sao Paulo Med J 2002 May 2;120(3):72-76.
  20. Leelahakorn S, Tangjitgamol S, Manusirivithaya S, Thongsuksai P, Jaroenchainon P, Jivangkul C. Comparison of ultrasound score, CA125, menopausal status, and risk of malignancy index in differentiating between benign and borderline or malignant ovarian tumors. J Med Assoc Thai 2005 Oct;88 (Suppl 2):S22-S30.
  21. Moore RG, Bast RC Jr. How do you distinguish a malignant pelvic mass from a benign pelvic mass? Imaging, biomarkers, or none of the above. J Clin Oncol 2007 Sep 20;25(27): 4159-4161.
  22. Munir SS, Sultana M, Amin D. The evaluation of pelvic mass. Biomedica 2010;26:70-75.
  23. Dhillon PK, Yeole BB, Dikshit R, Kurkure AP, Bray F. Trends in breast, ovarian and cervical cancer incidence in Mumbai, India over a 30-year period, 1976-2005: an age-period-cohort analysis. Br J Cancer 2011 Aug;105(5):723-730.
  24. Earle CC, Schrag D, Neville BA, Yabroff KR, Topor M, Fahey A, Trimble EL, Bodurka DC, Bristow RE, Carney M, et al. Effect of surgeon specialty on processes of care and outcomes for ovarian cancer patients. J Natl Cancer Inst 2006 Feb 1;98(3):172-180.
  25. Engelen MJ, Kos HE, Willemse PH, Aalders JG, de Vries EG, Schaapveld M, Otter R, van der Zee AG. Surgery by consultant gynecologic oncologists improves survival in patients with ovarian carcinoma. Cancer 2006 Feb 1;106(3):589-598.
  26. Bristow RE, Chang J, Ziogas A, Anton-Culver H. Adherence to treatment guidelines for ovarian cancer as a measure of quality care. Obstet Gynecol 2013 Jun;121(6):1226-1234.
  27. Gostout BS, Brewer MA. Guidelines for referral of the patient with an adnexal mass. Clin Obstet Gynecol 2006 Sep;49(3): 448-458.
  28. Dearking AC, Aletti GD, McGree ME, Weaver AL, Sommerfield MK, Cliby WA. How relevant are ACOG and SGO guidelines for referral of adnexal mass? Obstet Gynecol 2007 Oct;110(4):841-848.
  29. Chia YN, Marsden DE, Robertson G, Hacker NF. Triage of ovarian masses. Austr N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 2008 Jun;48(3):322-328.
  30. Manjunath A, Sujatha K, Vani R. Comparison of three risk of malignancy indices in evaluation of pelvic masses. Gynecol Oncol 2001 May;81(2):225-229.
  31. Rao JH. Risk of malignancy index in assessment of pelvic mass. Int J Biomed Res 2014;5(3):184-186.
  32. Javdekar R, Maitra N. Risk of Malignancy Index (RMI) in evaluation of adnexal mass. J Obstet Gynecol India 2015 Apr;65(2):117-121.
  33. Chopra S, Vaishya R, Kaur J. An evaluation of the applicability of the risk of malignancy index for adnexal masses to patients seen at a tertiary hospital in Chandigarh, India. J Obstet Gynaecol India 2015 Dec;65(6):405-410.
  34. D'Almeida JD, Rao SV. Retrospective analysis of pre operative evaluation of ovarian masses using RM1-1 and RM1-2. J Evol Med Dent Sci 2015;4(61):10631-10637.
  35. Vasudevan JA, Nair V, Sukumaran S. Evaluation of risk of malignancy index in the preoperative assessment of ovarian tumors: study from a tertiary care center. Saudi J Health Sci 2016;5(2):67-71.
  36. Kumari N, Gupta V, Kumari R, Makhija A. Evaluation of risk of malignancy index as a diagnostic tool in cases with adnexal mass. Int J Reprod Contracept Obstet Gynecol 2017;5(6): 1857-1861.
  37. Pariyar J. The role of Risk of Malignancy Index (RMI) based on serum CA-125 level, ultrasound score and menopausal status in pre-operative evaluation of adnexal mass. J Clin Oncol 2008;26(90150):16578.
  38. Irshad F, Irshad M. Accuracy of “risk of malignancy index” in the preoperative diagnosis of ovarian malignancy in post menopausal women. RMJ 2013;38(3):266-270.
  39. Aziz AB, Najmi N. Is risk malignancy index a useful tool for predicting malignant ovarian masses in developing countries? Obstet Gynecol Int 2015;2015:951256.
  40. Moolthiya W, Yuenyao P. The risk of malignancy index (RMI) in diagnosis of ovarian malignancy. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 2009;10(5):865-868.
  41. Ma S, Shen K, Lang J. A risk of malignancy index in preoperative diagnosis of ovarian cancer. Chin Med J 2003 Mar;116(3):396-399.
  42. Yamamoto Y, Tsuchida A, Ushiwaka T, Nagai R, Matsumoto M, Komatsu J, Kinoshita H, Minami S, Hayashi J. Comparison of 4 risk-of-malignancy indexes in the preoperative evaluation of patients with pelvic masses: a prospective study. Clin Ovarian Other Gynecol Cancer 2014 Dec;7(1-2):8-12.
  43. Obeidat BR, Amarin ZO, Latimer JA, Crawford RA. Risk of malignancy index in the preoperative evaluation of pelvic masses. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2004;85(3):255-258.
  44. Ulusoy S, Akbayir O, Numanoglu C, Ulusoy N, Odabas E, Gulkilik A. The risk of malignancy index in discrimination of adnexal masses. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2007 Mar;96(3):186-191.
  45. Mohammed AB, Ahuga VK, Taha M. Validation of the Risk of Malignancy Index in primary evaluation of ovarian masses. Middle East Fertil Soc J 2014;19(4):324-328.
  46. Al-Musalhi K, Al-Kindi M, Ramadhan F, Al-Rawahi T, Al- Hatali K, Mula-Abed WA. Validity of cancer antigen-125 (CA-125) and risk of malignancy index (RMI) in the diagnosis of ovarian cancer. Oman Med J 2015;30(6):428.
  47. Karimi-Zarchi M, Mojaver SP, Rouhi M, Hekmatimoghaddam SH, Moghaddam RN, Yazdian-Anari P, et al. Diagnostic value of the Risk of Malignancy Index (RMI) for detection of pelvic malignancies compared with pathology. Electron Physician 2015 Nov 20;7(7):1505-1510.
  48. Andersen ES, Knudsen A, Rix P, Johansen B. Risk of malignancy index in the preoperative evaluation of patients with adnexal masses. Gynecol Oncol 2003 Jul;90(1):109-112.
  49. Håkansson F, Høgdall EV, Nedergaard L, Lundvall L, Engelholm SA, Pedersen AT, Hartwell D, Høgdall C, Danish ‘Pelvic Mass’ Ovarian Cancer Study. Risk of malignancy index used as a diagnostic tool in a tertiary centre for patients with a pelvic mass. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2012 Apr;91(4):496-502.
  50. van den Akker PA, Aalders AL, Snijders MP, Kluivers KB, Samlal RA, Vollebergh JH, Massuger LF. Evaluation of the Risk of Malignancy Index in daily clinical management of adnexal masses. Gynecol Oncol 2010 Mar;116(3):384-388.
  51. Niemi RJ, Saarelainen SK, Luukkaala TH, Mäenpää JU. Reliability of preoperative evaluation of postmenopausal ovarian tumors. J Ovarian Res 2017 Mar 14;10(1):15.
  52. Davies AP, Jacobs I, Woolas R, Fish A, Oram D. The adnexal mass: benign or malignant? Evaluation of a risk of malignancy index. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1993 Oct;100(10):927-931.
  53. Bailey J, Tailor A, Naik R, Lopes A, Godfrey K, Hatem HM, Monaghan J. Risk of malignancy index for referral of ovarian cancer cases to a tertiary center: does it identify the correct cases? Int J Gynecol Cancer 2006 Jan-Feb;16 (Suppl 1):30-34.
  54. Harry V, Narayansingh G, Parkin D. The risk of malignancy index for ovarian tumours in Northeast Scotland—a population based study. Scott Med J 2009 May;54(2):21-23.
  55. Morgante G, la Marca A, Ditto A, De Leo V. Comparison of two malignancy risk indices based on serum CA125, ultrasound score and menopausal status in the diagnosis of ovarian masses. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1999 Jun;106(6):524-527.
  56. Terzic M, Dotlic J, Ladjevic IL, Atanackovic J, Ladjevic N. Evaluation of the risk malignancy index diagnostic value in patients with adnexal masses. Vojnosanit Pregl 2011 Jul;68(7):589-593.
  57. Asif N, Sattar A, Dawood MM, Rafi T, Aamir M, Anwar M. Pre-operative evaluation of ovarian mass: risk of malignancy index. J Coll Physicians Surg Pak 2004 Mar;14(3):128-131.
  58. Arun-Muthuvel V, Jaya V. Pre-operative evaluation of ovarian tumors by risk of malignancy index, CA125 and ultrasound. Asian Pac J Cancer Prevent 2014;15(6):2929-2932.
  59. Simsek HS, Tokmak A, Ozgu E, Doganay M, Danisman N, Erkaya S, Gungor T. Role of a risk of malignancy index in clinical approaches to adnexal masses. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 2014;15(18):7793-7797.
  60. Ashrafgangooei T, Rezaeezadeh M. Risk of malignancy index in preoperative evaluation of pelvic masses. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 2011;12(7):1727-1730.
  61. Enakpene CA, Omigbodun AO, Goecke TW, Odukogbe AT, Beckmann MW. Preoperative evaluation and triage of women with suspicious adnexal masses using risk of malignancy index. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 2009 Feb;35(1):131-138.
  62. Yavuzcan A, Caglar M, Ozgu E, Ustun Y, Dilbaz S, Ozdemir I, Yildiz E, Gungor T, Kumru S. Should cut-off values of the risk of malignancy index be changed for evaluation of adnexal masses in Asian and Pacific populations? Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 2013;14(9):5455-5459.
  63. Yelikar KA, Deshpande SS, Nanaware SS, Pagare SB. Evaluation of the validity of risk malignancy index in clinically diagnosed ovarian masses and to compare it with the validity of individual constituent parameter of risk malignancy index. Int J Reprod Contracept Obstet Gynecol 2016;5(2): 460-464.
  64. Bouzari Z, Yazdani S, Kelagar ZS, Abbaszadeh N. Risk of malignancy index as an evaluation of preoperative pelvic mass. Caspian J Intern Med 2011 Fall;2(4):331-335.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.