Comparison of the O-RADS and ADNEX models regarding malignancy rate and validity in evaluating adnexal lesions

Diagnostic accuracy of ultrasound classifications - O-RADS US v2022, O-RADS US v2020, and IOTA SR - in distinguishing benign and malignant adnexal masses: Enhanced by combining O-RADS US v2022 with tumor marker HE4

PURPOSE

To assess the diagnostic accuracy of O-RADS Ultrasound (O-RADS US) v2022, O-RADS US v2020, and IOTA SR, and to evaluate whether combining imaging findings with tumor markers enhances the diagnosis of adnexal masses.

METHODS

This retrospective study, conducted between January 2018 and December 2023, included consecutive women with adnexal masses scheduled for surgery. Histopathologic results served as the reference standard. Risk factors for malignancy were identified using univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses. ROC analysis was employed to assess diagnostic test performances, while Kappa statistics evaluated inter-reviewer agreement.

RESULTS

A total of 613 women (mean age, 49.39 ± 12.81 years; range, 16-87 years) with pelvic masses were included. O-RADS US v2022 exhibited comparable performance to O-RADS US v2020, with areas under the curve (AUC) values of 0.940 and 0.937, respectively (p = 0.02, exceeding the adjusted significance level of 0.0167). Both O-RADS models outperformed the IOTA SR, which had an AUC of 0.862 (p < 0.0001 for both comparisons). Multivariate analysis revealed that O-RADS US v2022 [OR 9.148, 95 %CI (4.912-17.039), p < 0.001] and HE4 [OR 1.023, 95 %CI (1.010-1.036), p = 0.001] were significant factors associated with malignant lesions. Furthermore, the combination of O-RADS US v2022 and HE4 demonstrated an AUC of 0.98, significantly outperforming either O-RADS US v2022 alone (AUC = 0.94) or HE4 alone (AUC = 0.92). The Kappa values for O-RADS US v2022, O-RADS US v2020 and IOTA SR were 0.933, 0.891 and 0.923, respectively, indicating substantial inter-reader agreement.

CONCLUSIONS

The O-RADS US v2022 demonstrates comparable performance in predicting ovarian malignant lesions when compared to O-RADS US v2020, while surpassing the performance of IOTA SR. Additionally, the combination of O-RADS US v2022 and HE4 provides improved diagnostic effectiveness over using either O-RADS US v2022 or HE4 alone.

GI-RADS versus O-RADS in the differential diagnosis of adnexal masses: a systematic review and head-to-head meta-analysis

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to compare the diagnostic performance of the Gynecology Imaging Reporting and Data System (GI-RADS) and Ovarian-Adnexal Reporting and Data System (O-RADS) ultrasound (US) classification systems and assess their capacity to stratify the risk of malignancy in adnexal masses (AMs).

METHODS

A comprehensive search of MEDLINE (PubMed), Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar was conducted to identify articles published between January 2020 and August 2023. The quality of the studies, the risk of bias, and concerns regarding applicability were assessed using QUADAS-2.

RESULTS

The search yielded 132 citations. Five articles, which included a total of 2,448 AMs, were ultimately selected for inclusion. The risk of bias was high in all articles regarding patient selection, low in four studies for the index test, and unclear in three papers for the reference test. For GI-RADS, the pooled sensitivity and specificity were 90.8% (95% confidence interval [CI], 86.0% to 94.0%) and 91.5% (95% CI, 89.0% to 93.0%), respectively. For O-RADS, the pooled sensitivity and specificity were 95.1% (95% CI, 93.0% to 97.0%) and 88.8% (95% CI, 85.0% to 92.0%), respectively. O-RADS demonstrated greater sensitivity for malignancy than GI-RADS (P<0.05). Heterogeneity was moderate for both sensitivity and specificity with respect to GIRADS; for O-RADS, heterogeneity was moderate for sensitivity and high for specificity.

CONCLUSION

Both GI-RADS and O-RADS US demonstrate good diagnostic performance in the preoperative assessment of AMs. However, the O-RADS classification provides superior sensitivity.

Diagnostic performances of the Ovarian Adnexal Reporting and Data System, the Risk of Ovarian Malignancy Algorithm, and the Copenhagen Index in the preoperative prediction of ovarian cancer: a prospective cohort study

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to assess the diagnostic performance of the Risk of Ovarian Malignancy Algorithm (ROMA), Copenhagen Index (CPH-I), and Ovarian Adnexal Reporting and Data System (O-RADS) for the preoperative prediction of ovarian cancer (OC).

METHODS

A prospective cohort study was conducted on 462 patients diagnosed with ovarian tumors admitted to the Departments of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Hue University of Medicine and Pharmacy Hospital, and Hue Central Hospital from May 2020 to December 2022. ROMA and CPH-I were calculated using cancer antigen 125 (CA125), human epididymal protein 4 (HE4) levels, and patient characteristics (age and menopausal status). O-RADS criteria were applied to describe ovarian tumor characteristics from ultrasound findings. Compared with histopathological results, the predictive values of ROMA, CPH-I, and O-RADS alone or in combination with CA125/HE4 for OC were calculated.

RESULTS

Among 462 patients, 381 had benign tumors, 11 had borderline tumors, and 50 had OC. At optimal cut-off points, ROMA's and CPH-I's areas under the curves (AUCs) were 0.880 (95% confidence interval [CI]=0.846-0.909) and 0.890 (95% CI=0.857-0.918), respectively, and ROMA and CPH-I sensitivities/specificities (Se/Sp) were 68.85%/95.01% and 77.05%/91.08%, respectively. O-RADS ≥3 yielded an AUCs of 0.949 (95% CI=0.924-0.968), with Se/Sp of 88.52%/88.98% (p<0.001). Combining O-RADS with CA125 demonstrated the highest predictive value, with AUCs of 0.969 (95% CI=0.949-0.983) and Se/Sp of 98.36%/86.09% (p<0.001).

CONCLUSION

The ROMA, CPH-I, O-RADS, O-RADS + CA125, and O-RADS + HE4 models demonstrated good predictive values for OC; the combination of O-RADS and CA125 yielded the highest values.

Analysis of Diagnostic Efficacy of the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis ADNEX Model and the ACR O-RADS US (Ovarian-Adnexal Reporting and Data System) for Benign and Malignant Ovarian Tumors: A Retrospective Study in a Tumor Center in Northeast China

This study is to analyze and compare the diagnostic efficacy of the ADNEX model and O-RADS in Northeast China for benign and malignant ovarian-adnexal tumors. From July 2020 to February 2022, ultrasound images of 312 ovarian-adnexal masses included in the study were analyzed retrospectively, and the properties of these masses were identified using the ADNEX model and O-RADS. The diagnostic efficiency of the ADNEX model and O-RADS was analyzed using a ROC curve, and the capacities of the two models in differentiating benign and malignant ovarian masses at the optimum cutoff value were compared, as well as the consistency of their diagnosis results was evaluated. The study included 312 ovarian-adnexal masses, including 145 malignant masses and 167 benign masses from 287 patients with an average age of (46.8 ± 11.3) years. The AUC of the ADNEX model was 0.974, and the optimum cutoff value was the risk value > 24.2%, with the corresponding sensitivity and specificity being 97.93 and 86.83, respectively. The AUC of the O-RADS was 0.956, and the optimum cutoff value was > O-RADS 3, with the corresponding sensitivity and specificity being 97.24 and 85.03, respectively. The AUCs of the two models were 0.924 and 0.911 at the optimum cutoff values, with no statistical differences between them (P = 0.284). Consistency analysis: the kappa values of the two models for the determination and pathological results of masses were 0.840 and 0.815, respectively, and that for the diagnostic outcomes was 0.910. Both the ADNEX model and O-RADS had good diagnostic performance in people from Northeast China. Their diagnostic capabilities were similar, and diagnostic results were highly consistent at the optimum cutoff values.

Comparison of O-RADS with the ADNEX model and IOTA SR for risk stratification of adnexal lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Purpose

This study aims to systematically compare the diagnostic performance of the Ovarian-Adnexal Reporting and Data System with the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis Simple Rules and the Assessment of Different NEoplasias in the adneXa model for risk stratification of ovarian cancer and adnexal masses.

Methods

A literature search of online databases for relevant studies up to July 2023 was conducted by two independent reviewers. The summary estimates were pooled with the hierarchical summary receiver-operating characteristic model. The quality of the included studies was assessed with the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 and the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-Comparative Tool. Metaregression and subgroup analyses were performed to explore the impact of varying clinical settings.

Results

A total of 13 studies met the inclusion criteria. The pooled sensitivity and specificity for eight head-to-head studies between the Ovarian-Adnexal Reporting and Data System and the Assessment of Different NEoplasias in the adneXa model were 0.96 (95% CI 0.92-0.98) and 0.82 (95% CI 0.71-0.90) vs. 0.94 (95% CI 0.91-0.95) and 0.83 (95% CI 0.77-0.88), respectively, and for seven head-to-head studies between the Ovarian-Adnexal Reporting and Data System and the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis Simple Rules, the pooled sensitivity and specificity were 0.95 (95% CI 0.93-0.97) and 0.75 (95% CI 0.62-0.85) vs. 0.91 (95% CI 0.82-0.96) and 0.86 (95% CI 0.76-0.93), respectively. No significant differences were found between the Ovarian-Adnexal Reporting and Data System and the Assessment of Different NEoplasias in the adneXa model as well as the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis Simple Rules in terms of sensitivity (P = 0.57 and P = 0.21) and specificity (P = 0.87 and P = 0.12). Substantial heterogeneity was observed among the studies for all three guidelines.

Conclusion

All three guidelines demonstrated high diagnostic performance, and no significant differences in terms of sensitivity or specificity were observed between the three guidelines.

ADNEX risk prediction model for diagnosis of ovarian cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis of external validation studies

Objectives

To conduct a systematic review of studies externally validating the ADNEX (Assessment of Different Neoplasias in the adnexa) model for diagnosis of ovarian cancer and to present a meta-analysis of its performance.

Design

Systematic review and meta-analysis of external validation studies.

Data sources

Medline, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, and Europe PMC, from 15 October 2014 to 15 May 2023.

Eligibility criteria for selecting studies

All external validation studies of the performance of ADNEX, with any study design and any study population of patients with an adnexal mass. Two independent reviewers extracted the data. Disagreements were resolved by discussion. Reporting quality of the studies was scored with the TRIPOD (Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis) reporting guideline, and methodological conduct and risk of bias with PROBAST (Prediction model Risk Of Bias Assessment Tool). Random effects meta-analysis of the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), sensitivity and specificity at the 10% risk of malignancy threshold, and net benefit and relative utility at the 10% risk of malignancy threshold were performed.

Results

47 studies (17 007 tumours) were included, with a median study sample size of 261 (range 24-4905). On average, 61% of TRIPOD items were reported. Handling of missing data, justification of sample size, and model calibration were rarely described. 91% of validations were at high risk of bias, mainly because of the unexplained exclusion of incomplete cases, small sample size, or no assessment of calibration. The summary AUC to distinguish benign from malignant tumours in patients who underwent surgery was 0.93 (95% confidence interval 0.92 to 0.94, 95% prediction interval 0.85 to 0.98) for ADNEX with the serum biomarker, cancer antigen 125 (CA125), as a predictor (9202 tumours, 43 centres, 18 countries, and 21 studies) and 0.93 (95% confidence interval 0.91 to 0.94, 95% prediction interval 0.85 to 0.98) for ADNEX without CA125 (6309 tumours, 31 centres, 13 countries, and 12 studies). The estimated probability that the model has use clinically in a new centre was 95% (with CA125) and 91% (without CA125). When restricting analysis to studies with a low risk of bias, summary AUC values were 0.93 (with CA125) and 0.91 (without CA125), and estimated probabilities that the model has use clinically were 89% (with CA125) and 87% (without CA125).

Conclusions

The results of the meta-analysis indicated that ADNEX performed well in distinguishing between benign and malignant tumours in populations from different countries and settings, regardless of whether the serum biomarker, CA125, was used as a predictor. A key limitation was that calibration was rarely assessed.

Systematic review registration

PROSPERO CRD42022373182.

Prediction model of adnexal masses with complex ultrasound morphology

Background

Based on the ovarian-adnexal reporting and data system (O-RADS), we constructed a nomogram model to predict the malignancy potential of adnexal masses with sophisticated ultrasound morphology.

Methods

In a multicenter retrospective study, a total of 430 subjects with masses were collected in the adnexal region through an electronic medical record system at the Fourth Hospital of Harbin Medical University during the period of January 2019-April 2023. A total of 157 subjects were included in the exception validation cohort from Harbin Medical University Tumor Hospital. The pathological tumor findings were invoked as the gold standard to classify the subjects into benign and malignant groups. All patients were randomly allocated to the validation set and training set in a ratio of 7:3. A stepwise regression analysis was utilized for filtering variables. Logistic regression was conducted to construct a nomogram prediction model, which was further validated in the training set. The forest plot, C-index, calibration curve, and clinical decision curve were utilized to verify the model and assess its accuracy and validity, which were further compared with existing adnexal lesion models (O-RADS US) and assessments of different types of neoplasia in the adnexa (ADNEX).

Results

Four predictors as independent risk factors for malignancy were followed in the preparation of the diagnostic model: O-RADS classification, HE4 level, acoustic shadow, and protrusion blood flow score (all p < 0.05). The model showed moderate predictive power in the training set with a C-index of 0.959 (95%CI: 0.940-0.977), 0.929 (95%CI: 0.884-0.974) in the validation set, and 0.892 (95%CI: 0.843-0.940) in the external validation set. It showed that the predicted consequences of the nomogram agreed well with the actual results of the calibration curve, and the novel nomogram was clinically beneficial in decision curve analysis.

Conclusion

The risk of the nomogram of adnexal masses with complex ultrasound morphology contained four characteristics that showed a suitable predictive ability and provided better risk stratification. Its diagnostic performance significantly exceeded that of the ADNEX model and O-RADS US, and its screening performance was essentially equivalent to that of the ADNEX model and O-RADS US classification.

Comparison of performance between O-RADS, IOTA simple rules risk assessment and ADNEX model in the discrimination of ovarian Brenner tumors

PURPOSE

To describe the clinical and sonographic features of ovarian benign Brenner tumor (BBT) and malignant Brenner tumor (MBT), and to compare performance of four diagnostic models in differentiating them.

METHODS

Fifteen patients with BBTs and nine patients with MBTs were retrospectively identified in our institution from January 2003 and December 2021. One ultrasound examiner categorized each mass according to ovarian-adnexal reporting and data system (O-RADS), international ovarian tumor analysis (IOTA) Simple Rules Risk (SR-Risk) assessment and assessment of different neoplasias in the adnexa (ADNEX) models with/without CA125. Receiver operating characteristic curves were generated to compare diagnostic performance.

RESULTS

Patients with MBT had higher CA125 serum level (62.5% vs. 6.7%, P = 0.009) and larger maximum diameter of lesion (89 mm vs. 43 mm, P = 0.009) than did those with BBT. BBT tended to have higher prevalence of calcifications (100% vs. 55.6%, P = 0.012) and acoustic shadowing (93.3% vs. 33.3%, P = 0.004), and lower color scores manifesting none or minimal flow (100.0% vs. 22.2%, P < 0.001). Areas under curves of O-RADS, IOTA SR-Risk and ADNEX models with/without CA125 were 0.896, 0.913, 0.892 and 0.896, respectively. There were no significant differences between them.

CONCLUSION

BBTs are often small solid tumors with sparse color Doppler signals, which contain calcifications with posterior acoustic shadowing. The most common pattern of MBT is a large multilocular-solid or solid mass with irregular tumor borders, and most were moderately or richly vascularized at color Doppler. These four models have excellent performance in distinguishing them.

O-RADS US: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Category-specific Malignancy Rates

Background Ovarian-Adnexal Reporting and Data System (O-RADS) US provides a standardized method with which to stratify lesions into risk of malignancy categories, which is crucial for proper management. Purpose To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to estimate malignancy rates for each O-RADS US score and evaluate the diagnostic performance of combined O-RADS US scores 4 and 5 in the diagnosis of malignancy. Materials and Methods A systematic literature search from the inception of the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Web of Science databases through January 27, 2023, was performed for articles that reported using the O-RADS US stratification system and included malignancy rates per each O-RADS score. Bivariate random-effects models were used to determine the pooled malignancy rates for each O-RADS US score and to obtain summary estimates of the diagnostic performance of combined O-RADS US scores 4 and 5 in the diagnosis of malignant lesions. Results The final analysis included 18 studies consisting of 11 605 patients and 11 818 ovarian-adnexal lesions, with 2996 malignant (25.4%) and 8822 benign (74.6%) lesions. No malignant lesions were reported in O-RADS 1 category. The pooled percentages of malignancy were 0.6% (95% CI: 0.3, 1.0) for O-RADS 2, 3.9% (95% CI: 2.5, 5.4) for O-RADS 3, 43.5% (95% CI: 33.8, 53.2) for O-RADS 4, and 87.3% (95% CI: 83.0, 91.7) for O-RADS 5. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of combined O-RADS scores 4 and 5 in the diagnosis of malignant lesions were 95.6% (95% CI: 94.0, 97.2) and 76.6% (95% CI: 70.4, 82.7), respectively. Conclusion Each O-RADS US score provided the intended probability of malignant lesions as outlined by the O-RADS risk stratification system. When O-RADS US scores 4 and 5 were combined as a predictor for malignancy, O-RADS US showed a high sensitivity and moderate specificity. Clinical trial registration no. CRD42022352166 © RSNA, 2023 Supplemental material is available for this article.

Diagnostic Performance of Ultrasonography-Based Risk Models in Differentiating Between Benign and Malignant Ovarian Tumors in a US Cohort

Importance

Ultrasonography-based risk models can help nonexpert clinicians evaluate adnexal lesions and reduce surgical interventions for benign tumors. Yet, these models have limited uptake in the US, and studies comparing their diagnostic accuracy are lacking.

Objective

To evaluate, in a US cohort, the diagnostic performance of 3 ultrasonography-based risk models for differentiating between benign and malignant adnexal lesions: International Ovarian Tumor Analysis (IOTA) Simple Rules with inconclusive cases reclassified as malignant or reevaluated by an expert, IOTA Assessment of Different Neoplasias in the Adnexa (ADNEX), and Ovarian-Adnexal Reporting and Data System (O-RADS).

Design, Setting, and Participants

This retrospective diagnostic study was conducted at a single US academic medical center and included consecutive patients aged 18 to 89 years with adnexal masses that were managed surgically or conservatively between January 2017 and October 2022.

Exposure

Evaluation of adnexal lesions using the Simple Rules, ADNEX, and O-RADS.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The main outcome was diagnostic performance, including area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC), sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and positive and negative likelihood ratios. Surgery or follow-up were reference standards. Secondary analyses evaluated the models' performances stratified by menopause status and race.

Results

The cohort included 511 female patients with a 15.9% malignant tumor prevalence (81 patients). Mean (SD) ages of patients with benign and malignant adnexal lesions were 44.1 (14.4) and 52.5 (15.2) years, respectively, and 200 (39.1%) were postmenopausal. In the ROC analysis, the AUCs for discriminative performance of the ADNEX and O-RADS models were 0.96 (95% CI, 0.93-0.98) and 0.92 (95% CI, 0.90-0.95), respectively. After converting the ADNEX continuous individualized risk into the discrete ordinal categories of O-RADS, the ADNEX performance was reduced to an AUC of 0.93 (95% CI, 0.90-0.96), which was similar to that for O-RADS. The Simple Rules combined with expert reevaluation had 93.8% sensitivity (95% CI, 86.2%-98.0%) and 91.9% specificity (95% CI, 88.9%-94.3%), and the Simple Rules combined with malignant classification had 93.8% sensitivity (95% CI, 86.2%-98.0%) and 88.1% specificity (95% CI, 84.7%-91.0%). At a 10% risk threshold, ADNEX had 91.4% sensitivity (95% CI, 83.0%-96.5%) and 86.3% specificity (95% CI, 82.7%-89.4%) and O-RADS had 98.8% sensitivity (95% CI, 93.3%-100%) and 74.4% specificity (95% CI, 70.0%-78.5%). The specificities of all models were significantly lower in the postmenopausal group. Subgroup analysis revealed high performances independent of race.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this diagnostic study of a US cohort, the Simple Rules, ADNEX, and O-RADS models performed well in differentiating between benign and malignant adnexal lesions; this outcome has been previously reported primarily in European populations. Risk stratification models can lead to more accurate and consistent evaluations of adnexal masses, especially when used by nonexpert clinicians, and may reduce unnecessary surgeries.

Ultrasound Features and Ultrasound Scores in the Differentiation between Benign and Malignant Adnexal Masses

BACKGROUND

Several ultrasound (US) features help ultrasound experts in the classification of benign vs. malignant adnexal masses. US scores serve in this differentiation, but they all have misdiagnoses. The main objective of this study is to evaluate what ultrasound characteristics are associated with malignancy influencing ultrasound scores.

METHODS

This is a retrospective analysis of ultrasound features of adnexal lesions of women managed surgically. Ultrasound characteristics were analyzed, and masses were classified by subjective assessment of the ultrasonographer (SA) and other ultrasound scores (IOTA Simple Rules Risk Assessment SRRA, ADNEX model, and O-RADS).

RESULTS

Of a total of 187 adnexal masses studied, 134 were benign (71.7%) and 53 were malignant (28.3%). SA, IOTA SRRA, ADNEX model with or without CA125 and O-RADS had high levels of sensitivity (93.9%, 81.1%, 94.3%, 88.7%, 98.1%) but lower specificity (80.2%, 82.1%, 82.8%, 77.6%, 73.1%) with similar AUC (0.87, 0.87, 0.92, 0.90, 0.86). Ultrasound features significantly related with malignancy were the presence of irregular contour, absence of acoustic shadowing, vascularized solid areas, ≥1 papillae, vascularized septum, and moderate-severe ascites.

CONCLUSION

IOTA SRRA, ADNEX model, and O-RADS can help in the classification of benign and malignant masses. Certain ultrasound characteristics studied in ultrasound scores are associated with malignancy.

Diagnostic performance of IOTA SR and O-RADS combined with CA125, HE4, and risk of malignancy algorithm to distinguish benign and malignant adnexal masses

PURPOSE

To compare the diagnostic performance of International Ovarian Tumour Analysis Simple Rules (IOTA SR) and Ovarian-Adnexal Reporting and Data System (O-RADS), and to analyse whether combining IOTA SR and O-RADS with the biomarkers cancer antigen 125 (CA125), human epididymis protein 4 (HE4), and risk of malignancy algorithm (ROMA) further improves diagnostic performance in women with different menopause status.

METHODS

This study retrospectively included patients with ovarian adnexal masses confirmed by surgical pathology between September 2021 and February 2022. The area under the curve (AUC), sensitivity, and specificity were calculated to evaluate the diagnostic efficacy of IOTA SR, O-RADS, and their combination with CA125, HE4, and ROMA.

RESULTS

This study included 1,179 ovarian adnexal masses. In all women, the AUC of IOTA SR was comparable to O-RADS (0.879 vs. 0.889, P = 0.361), and O-RADS had a significantly higher sensitivity than IOTA SR (95.77 % vs. 87.32 %, P < 0.001). In premenopausal women, O-RADS had a significantly higher AUC than other diagnostic strategies (all P < 0.05), and the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were 93.33 %, 84.74 %, and 85.59 %, respectively. In postmenopausal women, IOTA SR + ROMA had a significantly higher AUC than other diagnostic strategies (all P < 0.05), and the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were 85.37 %, 93.88 %, and 90.00 %, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study supports the high diagnostic value of IOTA SR or O-RADS alone in all women, and O-RADS was more sensitive than IOTA SR. In premenopausal women, O-RADS had the highest diagnostic value. In postmenopausal women, IOTA SR outperformed O-RADS, and IOTA SR + ROMA had the highest diagnostic value.

Comparison of Ultrasound Scores in Differentiating between Benign and Malignant Adnexal Masses

Subjective ultrasound assessment by an expert examiner is meant to be the best option for the differentiation between benign and malignant adnexal masses. Different ultrasound scores can help in the classification, but whether one of them is significantly better than others is still a matter of debate. The main aim of this work is to compare the diagnostic performance of some of these scores in the evaluation of adnexal masses in the same set of patients. This is a retrospective study of a consecutive series of women diagnosed as having a persistent adnexal mass and managed surgically. Ultrasound characteristics were analyzed according to IOTA criteria. Masses were classified according to the subjective impression of the sonographer and other ultrasound scores (IOTA simple rules -SR-, IOTA simple rules risk assessment -SRRA-, O-RADS classification, and ADNEX model -with and without CA125 value-). A total of 122 women were included. Sixty-two women were postmenopausal (50.8%). Eighty-one women had a benign mass (66.4%), and 41 (33.6%) had a malignant tumor. The sensitivity of subjective assessment, IOTA SR, IOTA SRRA, and ADNEX model with or without CA125 and O-RADS was 87.8%, 66.7%, 78.1%, 95.1%, 87.8%, and 90.2%, respectively. The specificity for these approaches was 69.1%, 89.2%, 72.8%, 74.1%, 67.9%, and 60.5%, respectively. All methods with similar AUC (0.81, 0.78, 0.80, 0.88, 0.84, and 0.75, respectively). We concluded that IOTA SR, IOTA SRRA, and ADNEX models with or without CA125 and O-RADS can help in the differentiation of benign and malignant masses, and their performance is similar to the subjective assessment of an experienced sonographer.

Nomogram based on the O-RADS for predicting the malignancy risk of adnexal masses with complex ultrasound morphology

OBJECTIVE

The accurate preoperative differentiation of benign and malignant adnexal masses, especially those with complex ultrasound morphology, remains a great challenge for junior sonographers. The purpose of this study was to develop and validate a nomogram based on the Ovarian-Adnexal Reporting and Data System (O-RADS) for predicting the malignancy risk of adnexal masses with complex ultrasound morphology.

METHODS

A total of 243 patients with data on adnexal masses with complex ultrasound morphology from January 2019 to December 2020 were selected to establish the training cohort, while 106 patients with data from January 2021 to December 2021 served as the validation cohort. Univariate and multivariate analyses were used to determine independent risk factors for malignant tumors in the training cohort. Subsequently, a predictive nomogram model was developed and validated in the validation cohort. The calibration, discrimination, and clinical net benefit of the nomogram model were assessed separately by calibration curves, receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves, and decision curve analysis (DCA). Finally, we compared this model to the O-RADS.

RESULTS

The O-RADS category, an elevated CA125 level, acoustic shadowing and a papillary projection with color Doppler flow were the independent predictors and were incorporated into the nomogram model. The area under the ROC curve (AUC) of the nomogram model was 0.958 (95% CI, 0.932-0.984) in the training cohort. The specificity and sensitivity were 0.939 and 0.893, respectively. This nomogram also showed good discrimination in the validation cohort (AUC = 0.940, 95% CI, 0.899-0.981), with a sensitivity of 0.915 and specificity of 0.797. In addition, the nomogram model showed good calibration efficiency in both the training and validation cohorts. DCA indicated that the nomogram was clinically useful. Furthermore, the nomogram model had higher AUC and net benefit than the O-RADS.

CONCLUSION

The nomogram based on the O-RADS showed a good predictive ability for the malignancy risk of adnexal masses with complex ultrasound morphology and could provide help for junior sonographers.

External Validation of the Ovarian-Adnexal Reporting and Data System (O-RADS) Lexicon and the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis 2-Step Strategy to Stratify Ovarian Tumors Into O-RADS Risk Groups

Importance

Correct diagnosis of ovarian cancer results in better prognosis. Adnexal lesions can be stratified into the Ovarian-Adnexal Reporting and Data System (O-RADS) risk of malignancy categories with either the O-RADS lexicon, proposed by the American College of Radiology, or the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis (IOTA) 2-step strategy.

Objective

To investigate the diagnostic performance of the O-RADS lexicon and the IOTA 2-step strategy.

Design, Setting, and Participants

Retrospective external diagnostic validation study based on interim data of IOTA5, a prospective international multicenter cohort study, in 36 oncology referral centers or other types of centers. A total of 8519 consecutive adult patients presenting with an adnexal mass between January 1, 2012, and March 1, 2015, and treated either with surgery or conservatively were included in this diagnostic study. Twenty-five patients were excluded for withdrawal of consent, 2777 were excluded from 19 centers that did not meet predefined data quality criteria, and 812 were excluded because they were already in follow-up at recruitment. The analysis included 4905 patients with a newly detected adnexal mass in 17 centers that met predefined data quality criteria. Data were analyzed from January 31 to March 1, 2022.

Exposures

Stratification into O-RADS categories (malignancy risk <1%, 1% to <10%, 10% to <50%, and ≥50%). For the IOTA 2-step strategy, the stratification is based on the individual risk of malignancy calculated with the IOTA 2-step strategy.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Observed prevalence of malignancy in each O-RADS risk category, as well as sensitivity and specificity. The reference standard was the status of the tumor at inclusion, determined by histology or clinical and ultrasonographic follow-up for 1 year. Multiple imputation was used for uncertain outcomes owing to inconclusive follow-up information.

Results

Median age of the 4905 patients was 48 years (IQR, 36-62 years). Data on race and ethnicity were not collected. A total of 3441 tumors (70%) were benign, 978 (20%) were malignant, and 486 (10%) had uncertain classification. Using the O-RADS lexicon resulted in 1.1% (24 of 2196) observed prevalence of malignancy in O-RADS 2, 4% (34 of 857) in O-RADS 3, 27% (246 of 904) in O-RADS 4, and 78% (732 of 939) in O-RADS 5; the corresponding results for the IOTA 2-step strategy were 0.9% (18 of 1984), 4% (58 of 1304), 30% (206 of 690), and 82% (756 of 927). At the 10% risk threshold (O-RADS 4-5), the O-RADS lexicon had 92% sensitivity (95% CI, 87%-96%) and 80% specificity (95% CI, 74%-85%), and the IOTA 2-step strategy had 91% sensitivity (95% CI, 84%-95%) and 85% specificity (95% CI, 80%-88%).

Conclusions and Relevance

The findings of this external diagnostic validation study suggest that both the O-RADS lexicon and the IOTA 2-step strategy can be used to stratify patients into risk groups. However, the observed malignancy rate in O-RADS 2 was not clearly below 1%.

Ovarian Adnexal Reporting Data System (O-RADS) for Classifying Adnexal Masses: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Simple Summary

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis aiming to assess the diagnostic performance of the Ovarian Adnexal Report Data System (O-RADS) using transvaginal ultrasound for classifying adnexal masses. Data from 11 studies comprising 4634 masses showed that the pooled estimated sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio, and diagnostic odds ratio of O-RADS system for classifying adnexal masses were 97% (95% confidence interval (CI) = 94%–98%), 77% (95% CI = 68%–84%), 4.2 (95% CI= 2.9–6.0), 0.04 (95% CI = 0.03–0.07), and 96 (95% CI = 50–185), respectively. We concluded that the O-RADS system has good sensitivity and moderate specificity for classifying adnexal masses.

Abstract

In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we aimed to assess the pooled diagnostic performance of the so-called Ovarian Adnexal Report Data System (O-RADS) for classifying adnexal masses using transvaginal ultrasound, a classification system that was introduced in 2020. We performed a search for studies reporting the use of the O-RADS system for classifying adnexal masses from January 2020 to April 2022 in several databases (Medline (PubMed), Google Scholar, Scopus, Cochrane, and Web of Science). We selected prospective and retrospective cohort studies using the O-RADS system for classifying adnexal masses with histologic diagnosis or conservative management demonstrating spontaneous resolution or persistence in cases of benign appearing masses after follow-up scan as the reference standard. We excluded studies not related to the topic under review, studies not addressing O-RADS classification, studies addressing MRI O-RADS classification, letters to the editor, commentaries, narrative reviews, consensus documents, and studies where data were not available for constructing a 2 × 2 table. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative likelihood ratios, and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) were calculated. The quality of the studies was evaluated using QUADAS-2. A total of 502 citations were identified. Ultimately, 11 studies comprising 4634 masses were included. The mean prevalence of ovarian malignancy was 32%. The risk of bias was high in eight studies for the “patient selection” domain. The risk of bias was low for the “index test” and “reference test” domains for all studies. Overall, the pooled estimated sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio, and DOR of the O-RADS system for classifying adnexal masses were 97% (95% confidence interval (CI) = 94%–98%), 77% (95% CI = 68%–84%), 4.2 (95% CI = 2.9–6.0), 0.04 (95% CI = 0.03–0.07), and 96 (95% CI = 50–185), respectively. Heterogeneity was moderate for sensitivity and high for specificity. In conclusion, the O-RADS system has good sensitivity and moderate specificity for classifying adnexal masses.