Gynecology Imaging Reporting and Data System (GI-RADS): diagnostic performance and inter-reviewer agreement

Follicular thyroid carcinoma within a struma ovarii: a case report

Struma ovarii comprises 1% of all ovarian tumors and 3% of ovarian teratomas. It occurs in older females. Struma ovarii is often asymptomatic, unilateral, and accidentally detected through abdominal ultrasound or computed tomography. It presents with palpable abdominal pain or irregular menstrual cycles. Generally, it is treated with surgical resection, even though the best procedure in these cases remains under discussion. In this study, we present a case of a 28-year-old female with severe pain in the right iliac fossa. Physical examination and radiological images showed a large mass. A bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy with omentectomy, a total mass resection, and an abdominal hysterectomy were performed. A biopsy confirmed the diagnosis of a follicular thyroid tumor. The management decision is based on clinical and pathological data. This is particularly challenging due to its rarity and the insufficient guidelines regarding the management of this type of cancer.

Predictive accuracy and reproducibility of the O-RADS US scoring system among sonologists with different training levels

PURPOSE

To investigate the predictive performance and reproducibility of Ovarian-Adnexal Reporting and Data System (O-RADS) ultrasound (US) system in evaluating adnexal masses between sonologists with varying levels of expertise.

METHODS

This was a single-center retrospective study conducted between May 2019 and May 2020, which included 147 adnexal mases with pathological results. Four sonologists with varying experiences independently assigned an O-RADS US category to each adnexal mass twice. The intra- and inter-observer agreement was assessed using weighted kappa values. The area under the curve (AUC), sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value (PPV and NPV) were assessed for each sonologist.

RESULTS

Of the 147 adnexal mases, 115 (78.2%) lesions were benign and 32 (21.8%) lesions were malignant. Considering O-RADS > 3 as a predictor for adnexal malignancy, the predictive accuracies of the four sonologists were excellent, with AUCs ranging from 0.831 to 0.926. The predictive accuracies of O-RADS US by experienced sonologists were significantly higher compared to inexperienced sonologists (all P values < 0.005). The O-RADS US presented high sensitivity and NPV value for each sonologist. With regard to the reproducibility of O-RADS, the intra- and inter-observer agreement among experienced sonologists performed better than inexperienced sonologists.

CONCLUSION

O-RADS showed difference in the predictive accuracy and reproducibility in the evaluation of adnexal masses among sonologists with different levels of expertise. Training is required for inexperienced sonologists before the generalization of O-RADS classification system in clinical practice.

Comparative Study of the Efficacy of the Ovarian-Adnexa Reporting and Data System Ultrasound Combined With Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound and the ADNEX MR Scoring System in the Diagnosis of Adnexal Masses

OBJECTIVE

The aims of this study were to develop the Ovarian-Adnexa Reporting and Data System (O-RADS) and O-RADS + contrast-enhanced ultrasound (O-RADS CEUS) scoring system to distinguish adnexal masses (AMs) and to compare the diagnostic efficacy of these systems with that of a magnetic resonance imaging scoring system (ADNEX MR).

METHODS

We retrospectively evaluated 278 ovarian masses from 240 patients between May 2017 and July 2022. Pathology and adequate follow-up were used as reference standards for comparing the validity of O-RADS, O-RADS CEUS and ADNEX MR scoring to diagnose AMs. Area under the curve (AUC), sensitivity and specificity were calculated. The inter-class correlation coefficient (ICC) was calculated to evaluate inter-reader agreement (IRA) between the two sonographers and two radiologists who analyzed the findings with the three modalities.

RESULTS

The AUCs of O-RADS, O-RADS CEUS and ADNEX MR scores were 0.928 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.895-0.956), 0.951(95% CI: 0.919-0.973) and 0.964 (95% CI: 0.935-0.983), respectively. Their sensitivities were 95.7%, 94.3 and 91.4%, and their specificities were 81.3%, 92.3% and 97.1%, respectively. The three modalities had accuracies of 84.9%, 92.8% and 95.7%, respectively. O-RADS had the highest sensitivity but significantly lower specificity (p < 0.001), whereas the ADNEX MR scoring had the highest specificity (p < 0.001) but lower sensitivity (p < 0.001). O-RADS CEUS had intermediate sensitivity and specificity (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

The addition of CEUS significantly improves the efficacy of O-RADS in diagnosing AMs. The diagnostic efficacy of the combination is comparable to that of the ADNEX MR scoring system.

Clinical value of O-RADS combined with serum CA125 and HE4 for the diagnosis of ovarian tumours

BACKGROUND

Ovarian tumors (OTs) are common gynecological tumors in women. It is very important to correctly distinguish benign and malignant OTs.

PURPOSE

To assess the diagnostic performance of the American College of Radiology (ACR) Ovarian-Adnexal Reporting and Data System (O-RADS) and evaluate the clinical value of O-RADS combined with serum carbohydrate antigen 125 (CA125) and human epididymis protein 4 (HE4) in differentiating benign from malignant OTs.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A retrospective analysis was performed on 431 cases including pathology and clinical data. The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was drawn, and sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and accuracy were calculated.

RESULTS

In premenopausal women, O-RADS and O-RADS combined with serum CA125 and HE4 showed sensitivity at 92.2% and 94.8%, specificity at 91.8% and 93.4%, and accuracy at 91.9% and 93.8%, respectively. In postmenopausal women, the sensitivity of O-RADS, O-RADS combined with serum CA125 and HE4 was 94.8% and 95.8%, specificity was 83.9% and 93.6%, and accuracy was 90.5% and 95.6%, respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of O-RADS combined with CA125 and HE4 in premenopausal and postmenopausal women were higher than that of O-RADS (P<0.05).

CONCLUSION

O-RADS has high diagnostic performance in OTs. When O-RADS is combined with CA125 and HE4 in the diagnosis of OTs, the sensitivity and specificity are improved, which is helpful to improve the diagnostic efficiency of OTs and has high clinical application value.

Does Combing O-RADS US and CA-125 Improve Diagnostic Accuracy in Assessing Adnexal Malignancy Risk in Women With Different Menopausal Status?

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the individual and combined performances of the Ovarian-adnexal Reporting and Data System Ultrasound (O-RADS US) and serum cancer antigen 125 (CA-125) in assessing adnexal malignancy risk in women with different menopausal status.

METHODS

This retrospective study included patients with adnexal masses scheduled for surgery based on their preoperative US and histopathology results between January 2018 and January 2020. O-RADS were used to assess adnexal malignancy by two experienced radiologists. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUCs) were used to compare the accuracy of O-RADS and a combination of O-RADS and CA-125. The weighted κ index was used to evaluate the inter-reviewer agreement.

RESULTS

Overall, the data of 443 lesions in 443 patients were included, involving 312 benign lesions and 131 malignant lesions. There were 361 premenopausal and 82 postmenopausal patients. The inter-reviewer agreement for the two radiologists was very good (weighted κ: 0.833). Combing O-RADS US and CA-125 significantly increased diagnostic accuracy for classifying malignant from benign adnexal masses, compared with O-RADS US alone (AUC: 0.97 vs 0.95, P < .001 for premenopausal population and AUC: 0.93 vs 0.85, P < .001 for postmenopausal population). The AUCs of O-RADS with and without CA-125 ranged from 0.50 to 0.99 for different adnexal pathology subtypes (ie, benign, borderline, Stage I-IV, and metastatic tumors).

CONCLUSION

The addition of CA-125 helps improve discrimination of O-RADS US between benign and malignant adnexal masses, especially in postmenopausal women.

American college of radiology ovarian-adnexal reporting and data system ultrasound (O-RADS): Diagnostic performance and inter-reviewer agreement for ovarian masses in children

Objective

To evaluate the diagnostic performance and inter-observer agreement of the American College of Radiology Ovarian-Adnexal Reporting and Data System Ultrasound (O-RADS) in the diagnosis of ovarian masses in children.

Methods

From June 2012 to December 2021, 163 ovarian masses in 159 patients with pathologic results were retrospectively analyzed. Each mass was classified into an O-RADS category according to the criteria. The diagnostic performance of O-RADS for detecting malignant ovarian masses was assessed using histopathology as the reference standard. Kappa (k) statistic was used to assess inter-observer agreement between a less-experienced and a well-experienced radiologist.

Results

Out of 163 ovarian masses, 18 (11.0%) were malignant and 145 (89.0%) were benign. The malignancy rates of O-RADS 5, O-RADS 4, and O-RADS 3 masses were 72.7%, 34.6%, and 4.8%, respectively. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.944 (95% CI, 0.908-0.981). The optimal cutoff value for predicting malignant ovarian masses was  > O-RADS 3 with a sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of 94.4%, 86.2% and 86.2% respectively. The inter-observer agreement of the O-RADS category was good (k = 0.777).

Conclusions

O-RADS has a high diagnostic performance for children with ovarian masses. It provides an effective malignant risk classification for ovarian masses in children, which shows high consistency between radiologists with different levels of experience.

IETA Ultrasonic Features Combined with GI-RADS Classification System and Tumor Biomarkers for Surveillance of Endometrial Carcinoma: An Innovative Study

Objectives: We were the first to combine IETA ultrasonic features with GI-RADS and tumor biomarkers for the surveillance of endometrial carcinoma. The aim was to evaluate the efficacy of single IETA ultrasonography GI-RADS classification and combined tumor biomarkers in differentiating benign and malignant lesions in the uterine cavity and endometrium. Methods: A total of 497 patients with intrauterine and endometrial lesions who had been treated surgically between January 2017 and December 2021 were enrolled; all of them had undergone ultrasound examinations before surgery. We analyzed the correlation between the terms of ultrasonic signs of the uterine cavity and endometrial lesions defined by the expert consensus of IETA and the benign and malignant lesions and then classified these ultrasonic signs by GI-RADS. In addition, the tumor biomarkers CA125, CA15-3, CA19-9 and HE4 were combined by adjusting the classification. The results of the comprehensive analysis were compared with pathological results to analyze their diagnostic efficacy. Results: (1) The statistic analysis confirmed that there were seven independent predictors of malignant lesions, including thickened endometrium (premenopause ≥ 18.5 mm, postmenopause ≥ 15.5 mm), non-uniform endometrial echogenicity (heterogeneous with irregular cysts), endometrial midline appearance (not defined), the endometrial-myometrial junction (interrupted or not defined), intracavitary fluid (ground glass or "mixed" echogenicity), color score (3~4 points) and vascular pattern (focal origin multiple vessels or multifocal origin multiple vessels). (2) In traditional ultrasound GI-RADS (U-T-GI-RADS), if category 4a was taken as the cut-off value of benign and malignant, the diagnostic sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV and diagnostic accuracy were 97.2%, 65.2%, 44.0%, 98.8% and 72.2%, respectively, and the area under the ROC curve (AUC) was 0.812. If 4b was taken as the cut-off value, the diagnostic sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV diagnostic accuracy and AUC were 88.1%, 92.0%, 75.6%, 96.5% and 91.2%, 0.900, respectively. The diagnostic sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV diagnostic accuracy and AUC were 75.2%, 98.5%, 93.2%, 93.4%, 93.4% and 0.868, respectively, when taking category 5 as the cutoff point. In modified ultrasound GI-RADS (U-M-GI-RADS), if 4a was taken as the cut-off value, The diagnostic efficacy was the same as U-T-GI-RADS. If 4b was taken as the cut-off value, the diagnostic sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, diagnostic accuracy and AUC were 88.1%, 92.3%, 76.2%, 96.5%, 91.3% and 0.902, respectively. If 4c was taken as the cutoff point, the diagnostic sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV diagnostic accuracy and AUC were 75.2%, 98.7%, 94.3%, 93.4%, 93.6% and 0.870, respectively. The diagnostic sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV diagnostic accuracy and AUC were 66.1%, 99.7%, 98.6%, 91.3%, 92.4% and 0.829, respectively, if taking category 5 as the cutoff point. (3) In the comprehensive diagnostic method of U-T-GI-RADS combined tumor biomarkers results, the AUC of class 4a, 4b and 5 as the cutoff value was 0.877, 0.888 and 0.738, respectively. The AUC of class 4a, 4b, 4c and 5 as the cutoff value in the comprehensive diagnostic method of U-M-GI-RADS combined tumor biomarkers results was 0.877, 0.888, 0.851 and 0.725, respectively. There was no significant difference in diagnostic efficiency between the two comprehensive diagnostic methods. Conclusions: In this study, no matter which diagnostic method was used, the best cutoff value for predicting malignant EC was ≥GI-RADS 4b. The GI-RADS classification had good performance in discriminating EC. The tumor biomarkers, CA125, CA19-9, CA15-3 and HE4, could improve the diagnostic efficacy for preoperative endometrial carcinoma assessment.

Interobserver agreement between eight observers using IOTA simple rules and O-RADS lexicon descriptors for adnexal masses

PURPOSE

To evaluate interobserver agreement in assigning imaging features and classifying adnexal masses using the IOTA simple rules versus O-RADS lexicon and identify causes of discrepancy.

METHODS

Pelvic ultrasound (US) examinations in 114 women with 118 adnexal masses were evaluated by eight radiologists blinded to the final diagnosis (4 attendings and 4 fellows) using IOTA simple rules and O-RADS lexicon. Each feature category was analyzed for interobserver agreement using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) for ordinal variables and free marginal kappa for nominal variables. The two-tailed significance level (a) was set at 0.05.

RESULTS

For IOTA simple rules, interobserver agreement was almost perfect for three malignant lesion categories (M2-4) and substantial for the remaining two (M1, M5) with k-values of 0.80-0.82 and 0.68-0.69, respectively. Interobserver agreement was almost perfect for two benign feature categories (B2, B3), substantial for two (B4, B5) and moderate for one (B1) with k-values of 0.81-0.90, 0.69-0.70 and 0.60, respectively. For O-RADS, interobserver agreement was almost perfect for two out of ten feature categories (ascites and peritoneal nodules) with k-values of 0.89 and 0.97. Interobserver agreement ranged from fair to substantial for the remaining eight feature categories with k-values of 0.39-0.61. Fellows and attendings had ICC values of 0.725 and 0.517, respectively.

CONCLUSION

O-RADS had variable interobserver agreement with overall good agreement. IOTA simple rules had more uniform interobserver agreement with overall excellent agreement. Greater reader experience did not improve interobserver agreement with O-RADS.

Value of cone beam computed tomography for detecting bone invasion in squamous cell carcinoma of the maxilla

OBJECTIVE

To determine the diagnostic value of cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) in detecting bone invasion in maxillary squamous cell carcinoma (MSCC).

STUDY DESIGN

In this retrospective cohort study, preoperative CBCT scans were independently assessed by a single surgeon in imaging assessment 1 (IA 1) and by 1 surgeon with 2 dentists in consensus (IA 2) for the presence of bone invasion in MSCC. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), accuracy, area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), and Cohen's κ were calculated. Histopathologic results of resection specimens served as the reference standard.

RESULTS

Of 27 patients, 19 (70%) had proven bone invasion. IA 1 yielded 68.4% sensitivity, 75.0% specificity, 86.7% PPV, 50.0% NPV, 70.4% accuracy, and 0.717 AUC. All results of IA 2 were true-positive and true-negative, resulting in 100% sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, accuracy, and AUC. The assessments differed in 6 cases. Interobserver κ was fair (0.38, 95% CI 0.04-0.72, P = .038). There was a significant association between CBCT detection of bone invasion and extent of surgical treatment (P = .006) CONCLUSIONS: The diagnostic accuracy of CBCT was high but observer-dependent. CBCT examination may be useful in surgical treatment planning.

Comparison of O-RADS, GI-RADS, and ADNEX for Diagnosis of Adnexal Masses: An External Validation Study Conducted by Junior Sonologists

OBJECTIVE

To externally validate the Ovarian-adnexal Reporting and Data System (O-RADS) and evaluate its performance in differentiating benign from malignant adnexal masses (AMs) compared with the Gynecologic Imaging Reporting and Data System (GI-RADS) and Assessment of Different NEoplasias in the adneXa (ADNEX).

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was performed on 734 cases from the Second Affiliated Hospital of Fujian Medical University. All patients underwent transvaginal or transabdominal ultrasound examination. Pathological diagnoses were obtained for all the included AMs. O-RADS, GI-RADS, and ADNEX were used to evaluate AMs by two sonologists, and the diagnostic efficacy of the three systems was analyzed and compared using pathology as the gold standard. We used the kappa index to evaluate the inter-reviewer agreement (IRA).

RESULTS

A total of 734 AMs, including 564 benign masses, 69 borderline masses, and 101 malignant masses were included in this study. O-RADS (0.88) and GI-RADS (0.90) had lower sensitivity than ADNEX (0.95) (P < .05), and the PPV of O-RADS (0.98) was higher than that of ADNEX (0.96) (P < .05). These three systems showed good IRA.

CONCLUSION

O-RADS, GI-RADS, and ADNEX showed little difference in diagnostic performance among resident sonologists. These three systems have their own characteristics and can be selected according to the type of center, access to patients' clinical data, or personal comfort.

The learning curve and difficult points of the O-RADS ultrasound risk stratification system in 54 trainees

Purpose

This study aimed to evaluate the learning curve and explore the difficult points of the Ovarian-Adnexal Reporting and Data System (O-RADS) ultrasound risk stratification system.

Methods

One hundred adnexal masses (AMs) were randomly selected for five tests as training data. Two experienced trainers had an inter-rater agreement of 0.95 for the O-RADS scores. Fifty-four trainees (26 level I practitioners [group 1], 17 level II practitioners [group 2], and 11 experienced level II practitioners [group 3]) attended the training. Every trainee received assessment and feedback after 20 scored cases. The outcomes of the five tests were compared among the three groups using repeated-measurements analysis of variance.

Results

Of the 100 AMs, 52 were pathologically benign and 48 were malignant; the O-RADS scores were 2, 3, 4, and 5 in 22, 11, 48, and 19 AMs, respectively. The between-subjects effects test showed no significant differences between groups 1, 2, and 3 for the five tests (P=0.501). For each group, the differences among the five tests were significant (P<0.001, P=0.006, and P=0.044 for groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively). Test 2 was the worst. In 23 cases, more than 40% of trainees gave incorrect answers, which mainly related to classic benign lesions, the color flow score, and solid-appearing masses.

Conclusion

After training, junior doctors at different levels can reach a coincident O-RADS ultrasound risk stratification. The difficulties primarily related to subjective judgments of classic benign lesions, the color flow score, and solid-appearing masses. More experience is needed to improve the applicability of the system.

[Adnexal Masses: Clinical Application of Multiparametric MR Imaging & O-RADS MRI]

Incidental adnexal masses considered indeterminate for malignancy are commonly observed on ultrasonography. Multiparametric MRI is the imaging modality of choice for the evaluation of sonographically indeterminate adnexal masses. Conventional MRI enables a confident pathologic diagnosis of various benign lesions due to accurate tissue characterization of fat, blood, fibrous tissue, and solid components. Additionally, functional imaging sequences, including perfusion- and diffusion-weighted imaging, improve the diagnostic efficacy of conventional MRI in differentiating benign from malignant adnexal masses. The ovarian-adnexal reporting and data system (O-RADS) MRI was recently designed to provide consistent interpretations in assigning risk of malignancy to ovarian and other adnexal masses, and to provide a management recommendation for each risk category. In this review, we describe the clinical application of multiparametric MRI for the evaluation of adnexal masses and introduce the O-RADS MRI risk stratification system.

Ultrasound Assessment of Adnexal Pathology: Standardized Methods and Different Levels of Experience

Background and objectives: An expert’s subjective assessment is still the most reliable evaluation of adnexal pathology, thus raising the need for methods less dependent on the examiner’s experience. The aim of this study was to evaluate the performance of standardized methods when applied by examiners with different levels of experience and to suggest the most suitable method for less-experienced gynecologists. Materials and methods: This single-center retrospective study included 50 cases of histologically proven first-time benign or malignant adnexal pathology. Three examiners evaluated the same transvaginal ultrasound images: an expert (level III), a 4th year resident in gynecology (level I), and a final year medical student after basic training (labeled as level 0). The assessment methods included subjective evaluation, Simple Rules (SR) with and without algorithm, ADNEX and Gynecologic Imaging Reporting and Data System (GI-RADS) models. Sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, positive and negative predictive values with 95% confidence interval were calculated. Results: Out of 50 cases, 33 (66%) were benign and 17 (34%) were malignant adnexal masses. Using only SR, level III could classify 48 (96%), level I—41 (82%) and level 0—40 (80%) adnexal lesions. Using SR and algorithm, the performance improved the most for all levels and yielded sensitivity and specificity of 100% for level III, 100% and 97% for level I, 94.4% and 100% for level 0, respectively. Compared to subjective assessment, ADNEX lowered the accuracy of level III evaluation from 97.9% to 88% and GI-RADS had no impact. ADNEX and GI-RADS improved the sensitivity up to 100% for the less experienced; however, the specificity and accuracy were notably decreased. Conclusions: SR and SR+ algorithm have the most potential to improve not only sensitivity, but also specificity and accuracy, irrespective of the experience level. ADNEX and GI-RADS can yield sensitivity of 100%; however, the accuracy is decreased.

ESGO/ISUOG/IOTA/ESGE Consensus Statement on preoperative diagnosis of ovarian tumors

The European Society of Gynaecological Oncology (ESGO), the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology (ISUOG), the International Ovarian Tumour Analysis (IOTA) group and the European Society for Gynaecological Endoscopy (ESGE) jointly developed clinically relevant and evidence-based statements on the preoperative diagnosis of ovarian tumors, including imaging techniques, biomarkers and prediction models. ESGO/ISUOG/IOTA/ESGE nominated a multidisciplinary international group, including expert practising clinicians and researchers who have demonstrated leadership and expertise in the preoperative diagnosis of ovarian tumors and management of patients with ovarian cancer (19 experts across Europe). A patient representative was also included in the group. To ensure that the statements were evidence-based, the current literature was reviewed and critically appraised. Preliminary statements were drafted based on the review of the relevant literature. During a conference call, the whole group discussed each preliminary statement and a first round of voting was carried out. Statements were removed when consensus among group members was not obtained. The voters had the opportunity to provide comments/suggestions with their votes. The statements were then revised accordingly. Another round of voting was carried out according to the same rules to allow the whole group to evaluate the revised version of the statements. The group achieved consensus on 18 statements. This Consensus Statement presents these ESGO/ISUOG/IOTA/ESGE statements on the preoperative diagnosis of ovarian tumors and the assessment of carcinomatosis, together with a summary of the evidence supporting each statement.

ESGO/ISUOG/IOTA/ESGE Consensus Statement on preoperative diagnosis of ovarian tumours

The European Society of Gynaecological Oncology (ESGO), the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology (ISUOG), the International Ovarian Tumour Analysis (IOTA) group and the European Society for Gynaecological Endoscopy (ESGE) jointly developed clinically relevant and evidence-based statements on the preoperative diagnosis of ovarian tumours, including imaging techniques, biomarkers and prediction models.

ESGO/ISUOG/IOTA/ESGE nominated a multidisciplinary international group, including expert practising clinicians and researchers who have demonstrated leadership and expertise in the preoperative diagnosis of ovarian tumours and management of patients with ovarian cancer (19 experts across Europe). A patient representative was also included in the group. To ensure that the statements were evidence-based, the current literature was reviewed and critically appraised.

Preliminary statements were drafted based on the review of the relevant literature. During a conference call, the whole group discussed each preliminary statement and a first round of voting was carried out. Statements were removed when a consensus among group members was not obtained. The voters had the opportunity to provide comments/suggestions with their votes. The statements were then revised accordingly. Another round of voting was carried out according to the same rules to allow the whole group to evaluate the revised version of the statements. The group achieved consensus on 18 statements.

This Consensus Statement presents these ESGO/ISUOG/IOTA/ESGE statements on the preoperative diagnosis of ovarian tumours and the assessment of carcinomatosis, together with a summary of the evidence supporting each statement.

ESGO/ISUOG/IOTA/ESGE Consensus Statement on pre-operative diagnosis of ovarian tumors

The European Society of Gynaecological Oncology (ESGO), the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology (ISUOG), the International Ovarian Tumour Analysis (IOTA) group, and the European Society for Gynaecological Endoscopy (ESGE) jointly developed clinically relevant and evidence-based statements on the pre-operative diagnosis of ovarian tumors, including imaging techniques, biomarkers, and prediction models. ESGO/ISUOG/IOTA/ESGE nominated a multidisciplinary international group, including expert practising clinicians and researchers who have demonstrated leadership and expertise in the pre-operative diagnosis of ovarian tumors and management of patients with ovarian cancer (19 experts across Europe). A patient representative was also included in the group. To ensure that the statements were evidence-based, the current literature was reviewed and critically appraised. Preliminary statements were drafted based on the review of the relevant literature. During a conference call, the whole group discussed each preliminary statement and a first round of voting was carried out. Statements were removed when a consensus among group members was not obtained. The voters had the opportunity to provide comments/suggestions with their votes. The statements were then revised accordingly. Another round of voting was carried out according to the same rules to allow the whole group to evaluate the revised version of the statements. The group achieved consensus on 18 statements. This Consensus Statement presents these ESGO/ISUOG/IOTA/ESGE statements on the pre-operative diagnosis of ovarian tumors and the assessment of carcinomatosis, together with a summary of the evidence supporting each statement.

Prediction Models of Adnexal Masses: State-of-the-Art Review

Importance

Several predictive models and scoring systems have been developed to differentiate between benign and malignant ovarian masses, in order to guide effective management. These models use combinations of patient characteristics, ultrasound markers, and biochemical markers.

Objective

The aim of this study was to describe, compare, and prioritize, according to their strengths and qualities, all the adnexal prediction models.

Evidence Acquisition

This was a state-of-the-art review, synthesizing the findings of the current published literature on the available prediction models of adnexal masses.

Results

The existing models include subjective assessment by expert sonographers, the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis models (logistic regression models 1 and 2, Simple Rules, 3-step strategy, and ADNEX [Assessment of Different NEoplasias in the adneXa] model), the Risk of Malignancy Index, the Risk of Malignancy Ovarian Algorithm, the Gynecologic Imaging Reporting and Data System, and the Ovarian-Adnexal Reporting and Data System. Overall, subjective assessment appears to be superior to all prediction models. However, the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis models are probably the best available methods for nonexpert examiners. The Ovarian-Adnexal Reporting and Data System is an international approach that incorporates both the common European and North American approaches, but still needs to be validated.

Conclusions

Many prediction models exist for the assessment of adnexal masses. The adoption of a particular model is based on local guidelines, as well as sonographer's experience. The safety of expectant management of adnexal masses with benign ultrasound morphology is still under investigation.

The diagnostic performance of the Gynecologic Imaging Reporting and Data System (GI-RADS) in adnexal masses

Background

Adnexal masses, mostly benign, are common in the female genital system. However, adnexal masses are the leading cause of death among women with gynecologic cancer. Ultrasound is a common imaging method for diagnosing adnexal masses. Gynecologic Imaging Reporting and Data System (GI-RADS) is a useful diagnostic tool based on objective ultrasound features to diagnose the malignancy of the female genital system. Therefore, we conducted a meta-analysis to evaluate the ability of GI-RADS to differentiate adnexal masses.

Methods

Published articles were searched in PubMed, Medline, and Embase from 1990 to February 2020. Pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR), diagnostic odds ratio, and area under the curve (AUC) were estimated via the extracted data from the selected studies.

Results

Ten studies and 2,474 patients were included in this meta-analysis. The pooled sensitivity of selected studies was 0.95 [95% confidence intervals (CI): 0.94-0.97], and the pooled specificity was 0.86 (95% CI: 0.84-0.88). The pooled NLR and PLR were 0.06 (95% CI: 0.04-0.10), and 8.30 (95% CI: 4.93-13.97), respectively. Moreover, the pooled diagnostic odds ratio for GI-RADS was 174.59 (95% CI: 76.70-397.42), and the AUC was 0.9806.

Conclusions

This research indicates that GI-RADS might be a valuable tool to distinguish malignancies from adnexal masses.

Multimodality imaging review of complex pelvic lesions in female pelvis

Complex pelvic lesions can originate from various anatomical structures in the pelvis and pose a diagnostic dilemma due to a wide range of possible diagnoses. Accurate characterisation of these lesions would often require an algorithmic approach, which incorporates clinical findings, sequential use of multiple imaging modalities and a multiparametric approach. This approach usually aims at identifying key imaging features, which aid in anatomical localisation, morphology and tissue characterisation. There have been various attempts to standardise the lexicon used for describing adnexal masses in female patients; stratify their risk of cancer and suggest appropriate next steps in the management pathway. Through this review, we extend this approach to complex pelvic masses in female pelvis in general and will focus on optimal use of different imaging modalities to arrive at definitive diagnosis or meaningful differential diagnosis. We will also discuss potential pitfalls of imaging diagnosis and common mimics.

Comparison of O-RADS, GI-RADS, and IOTA simple rules regarding malignancy rate, validity, and reliability for diagnosis of adnexal masses

OBJECTIVE

The American College of Radiology (ACR) recently published the ovarian-adnexal reporting and data system (O-RADS) to provide guidelines to physicians who interpret ultrasound (US) examinations of adnexal masses (AM). This study aimed to compare the O-RADS with two other well-established US classification systems for diagnosis of AM.

METHODS

This retrospective multicenter study between May 2016 and December 2019 assessed consecutive women with AM detected by the US. Five experienced consultant radiologists independently categorized each AM according to O-RADS, gynecologic imaging reporting and data system (GI-RADS), and international ovarian tumor analysis (IOTA) simple rules. Pathology and adequate follow-up were used as reference standards for calculating the validity of three US classification systems for diagnosis of AM. Kappa statistics were used to assess the inter-reviewer agreement (IRA).

RESULTS

A total of 609 women (mean age, 48 ± 13.7 years; range, 18-72 years) with 647 AM were included. Of the 647 AM, 178 were malignant and 469 were benign. Malignancy rates were comparable to recommended rates by previous literature in O-RADS and IOTA, but higher in GI-RADS. O-RADS had significantly higher sensitivity for malignancy than GI-RAD and IOTA (p = 0.003 and 0.0007, respectively), but non-significant slightly lower specificity (p > 0.05). O-RADS, GI-RADS, and IOTA showed similar overall IRA (κ = 0.77, 0.69, and 0.63, respectively) with a tendency toward higher IRA with O-RADS than with GI-RADS and IOTA.

CONCLUSIONS

O-RADS compares favorably with GI-RADS and IOTA. O-RADS had higher sensitivity than GI-RADS and IOTA simple rules with relatively similar specificity and reliability.

KEY POINTS

• The malignancy rates were comparable to recommended rates by previous literature in O-RADS and IOTA, but higher in GI-RADS. • The O-RADS had significantly higher sensitivity for malignancy than GI-RADS and IOTA (96.8% vs 92.7% and 92.1%; p = 0.003 and 0.0007, respectively), but non-significant slightly lower specificity (92.8% vs 93.6% and 93.2%, respectively; p > 0.05). • The O-RADS, GI-RADS, and IOTA showed similar overall inter-reviewer agreement (IRA) (κ = 0.77, 0.69, and 0.63, respectively), with a tendency toward higher IRA with O-RADS than with GI-RADS and IOTA.

Ovarian-Adnexal Reporting Data System Magnetic Resonance Imaging (O-RADS MRI) Score for Risk Stratification of Sonographically Indeterminate Adnexal Masses

IMPORTANCE

Approximately one-quarter of adnexal masses detected at ultrasonography are indeterminate for benignity or malignancy, posing a substantial clinical dilemma.

OBJECTIVE

To validate the accuracy of a 5-point Ovarian-Adnexal Reporting Data System Magnetic Resonance Imaging (O-RADS MRI) score for risk stratification of adnexal masses.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This multicenter cohort study was conducted between March 1, 2013, and March 31, 2016. Among patients undergoing expectant management, 2-year follow-up data were completed by March 31, 2018. A routine pelvic MRI was performed among consecutive patients referred to characterize a sonographically indeterminate adnexal mass according to routine diagnostic practice at 15 referral centers. The MRI score was prospectively applied by 2 onsite readers and by 1 reader masked to clinical and ultrasonographic data. Data analysis was conducted between April and November 2018.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary end point was the joint analysis of true-negative and false-negative rates according to the MRI score compared with the reference standard (ie, histology or 2-year follow-up).

RESULTS

A total of 1340 women (mean [range] age, 49 [18-96] years) were enrolled. Of 1194 evaluable women, 1130 (94.6%) had a pelvic mass on MRI with a reference standard (surgery, 768 [67.9%]; 2-year follow-up, 362 [32.1%]). A total of 203 patients (18.0%) had at least 1 malignant adnexal or nonadnexal pelvic mass. No invasive cancer was assigned a score of 2. Positive likelihood ratios were 0.01 for score 2, 0.27 for score 3, 4.42 for score 4, and 38.81 for score 5. Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.961 (95% CI, 0.948-0.971) among experienced readers, with a sensitivity of 0.93 (95% CI, 0.89-0.96; 189 of 203 patients) and a specificity of 0.91 (95% CI, 0.89-0.93; 848 of 927 patients). There was good interrater agreement among both experienced and junior readers (κ = 0.784; 95% CI, 0.743-0824). Of 580 of 1130 women (51.3%) with a mass on MRI and no specific gynecological symptoms, 362 (62.4%) underwent surgery. Of them, 244 (67.4%) had benign lesions and a score of 3 or less. The MRI score correctly reclassified the mass origin as nonadnexal with a sensitivity of 0.99 (95% CI, 0.98-0.99; 1360 of 1372 patients) and a specificity of 0.78 (95% CI, 0.71-0.85; 102 of 130 patients).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this study, the O-RADS MRI score was accurate when stratifying the risk of malignancy in adnexal masses.