Comparison of the risk of ovarian malignancy algorithm and Copenhagen Index for the preoperative assessment of Japanese women with ovarian tumors.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the risk of ovarian malignancy algorithm (ROMA) and Copenhagen Index (CPH-I) in their ability to distinguish epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) and malignant ovarian tumors (MLOT) from benign ovarian tumors (BeOT) in Japanese women. METHODS: Patients with pathologically diagnosed ovarian tumors were included in this study. The study validated the diagnostic performance of ROMA and CPH-I. RESULTS: Among the 463 Japanese women included in this study, 312 had BeOT, 99 had EOC, and 52 had other MLOT. The receiver-operator characteristic (ROC) area under the curve (AUCs) of ROMA (0.89) and CPH-I (0.89) for distinguishing EOC from BeOT were significantly higher than that of CA125 (0.82) (CA 125 vs. ROMA; p = 0.002, vs. CPH-I; p < 0.001). The ROC-AUCs of ROMA (0.82) and CPH-I (0.81) for distinguishing MLOT from BeOT were significantly higher than that of CA125 (0.75) (CA 125 vs. ROMA: p = 0.003, vs. CPH-I: p < 0.001). The sensitivity (SN)/specificity (SP) of ROMA and CPH-I for distinguishing EOC from BeOT at standard cut-off points were 69%/90%, and 69%/90%, respectively, those for distinguishing MLOT from BeOT were 54%/90%, and 55%/90%, respectively. CONCLUSION: ROMA and CPH-I performed comparably well and better than CA125 in distinguishing EOC from BeOT in Japanese women. ROMA and CHP-I should be used with caution in practical situations, where all histological possibilities for must be considered, because the SNs of ROMA and CPH-I were only 54% and 55%.