Aims and Objectives: The main objective of our study was to determine the sensitivity and specificity of International Ovarian Tumor Analysis (IOTA) Simple Ultrasound Rules and Risk of Malignancy Index (RMI) in differentiating benign from malignant ovarian masses and to compare the results generated with histological diagnosis.

Materials and Methods: A total of 50 consenting patients with ovarian mass coming to the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology of our college in reproductive and menopausal age group were enrolled over a period of nine months. Data was collected using a standardized pretested proforma. Detailed examination of the subjects was done following which ultrasonographic assessment was done by gynecologists. In the subsequent visit or post admission blood investigations including CA-125 was done. Patient management as per departmental protocol was continued.

Results: The sensitivity, specificity, Positive Predictive value and Negative Predictive Value of RMI 2 in our study was 75.75%, 64.7%, 80.6% and 57.8% respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, Positive Predictive value and Negative Predictive Value of IOTA Simple Ultrasound rules in our study was 96.96%, 71.4%, 88.8% and 90.9% respectively.

Conclusion: In the present study we have seen that IOTA Simple USG Rules had better Sensitivity, Specificity, Positive Predictive Value and Negative Predictive Value than Risk of Malignancy Index (RMI 2). Though both the scoring systems have their own set of limitations IOTA Simple USG rules in our study seems to be a better scoring system; still we need to have a larger sample size, more Indian populationbased studies to extrapolate the same results to Indian populations.