Yavuzcan, AliÇağlar, MeteÖzgü, EmreÜstün, YusufDilbaz, SerdarÖzdemir, İsmailKumru, Selahattin2020-04-302020-04-3020141028-4559https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tjog.2014.08.003https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12684/2556KUMRU, Selahattin/0000-0001-6615-7666; Ozgu, Emre/0000-0002-8444-9694; Gungor, Tayfun/0000-0002-7869-9662WOS: 000348753800015PubMed: 25510694Objective: The aim of our study was to evaluate the individual contribution of parity when incorporated as another parameter into the four risk of malignancy indices (RMI 1-4) to differentiate noninvasive benign lesions from invasive malignant ovarian lesions. Materials and methods: After calculating RMI 1-4 for each patient included in this study, the resulting RMI scores were further multiplied by the parity score (P) of each patient to calculate the RMI parity (RMIP) score. Results: A cutoff value of 300 for RMIP 1 yielded 95.0% specificity, 97.4% negative predictive value (NPV), 88.5% sensitivity, and 79.3% positive predictive value (PPV) and performed better than RMI 1 in the preoperative diagnosis of invasive malignant lesions. RMIP 2 with a cutoff value of 400 yielded 95.0% specificity, 97.4% NPV, 88.5% sensitivity, and 79.3% PPV, and it also performed better than RMI 2. A cutoff value of 400 for RMIP 3 provided 97.5% specificity, 97.5% NPV, 88.5% sensitivity, and 88.5% PPV and performed better than RMI 3. However, a cutoff value of 400 for RMIP 4 provided 90.0% specificity, 97.3% NPV, 88.5% sensitivity, and 65.7% PPV but did not perform better than RMI 4 in the preoperative diagnosis of invasive malignant lesions. Conclusion: RMIP 1-3 scales were more reliable tools for the preoperative diagnosis of invasive adnexal masses compared with the traditional RMI 1-3 scales. Copyright (C) 2014, Taiwan Association of Obstetrics & Gynecology. Published by Elsevier Taiwan LLC. All rights reserved.en10.1016/j.tjog.2014.08.003info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessadnexal lesionparityrisk of malignancy indexArticle534518522WOS:000348753800015Q2Q4