Risk of ovarian malignancy algorithm versus risk malignancy Index-I for preoperative assessment of adnexal masses: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Purpose: To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies comparing the diagnostic accuracy of Risk of Ovarian Malignancy Algorithm (ROMA) and risk of malignancy index (RMI) for detecting ovarian cancer. Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed according to PRISMA statement. A search for studies evaluating the diagnostic performance of ROMA and RMI-I indices for detecting ovarian malignancy from January 2010 to October 2018 was performed in the PubMed/MEDLINE and Web of Science databases. The quality of the studies was evaluated by the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2. Results: Sixty-six citations were identified. After exclusions, 8 papers comprising 2,662 women (1,319 premenopausal and 1,343 postmenopausal) were ultimately included. The mean prevalence of ovarian malignancy was 29.0% in premenopausal women and 51.0% in postmenopausal women. High risk of bias for patient selection was observed for most studies. ROMA and RMI-I had a similar diagnostic performance in postmenopausal women (pooled sensitivity [87 vs. 77%] and specificity [75 vs. 85%], respectively. p = 0.29). In premenopausal women, RMI-I showed better specificity than ROMA (89 vs. 78%, p = 0.022) with similar sensitivity (73 vs. 80%, p= 0.27). Significant heterogeneity was found for sensitivity and specificity in comparisons of both groups. Conclusions: ROMA and RMI-I have similar diagnostic performance for detecting ovarian cancer in women presenting with an adnexal mass. However, RMI-I showed a higher specificity than ROMA in premenopausal women. Notwithstanding, as the risk of bias is high in most studies, our results should be interpreted with caution.