Diagnostic value of the gynecology imaging reporting and data system (GI-RADS) with the ovarian malignancy marker CA-125 in preoperative adnexal tumor assessment

Diagnostic performance of ultrasound reporting systems in evaluation of adnexal masses: A prospective observational study

OBJECTIVE(S)

To evaluate and compare diagnostic performance of ultrasound-based reporting systems IOTA SR, ADNEX, GIRADS, ORADS for discrimination between benign and malignant adnexal masses.

STUDY DESIGN

A prospective observational study in a tertiary care hospital's Obstetrics and Gynaecology department evaluated pre-operative ultrasound imaging for adnexal masses in 80 cases, comparing various reporting systems' sensitivity and specificity against histopathology as gold standard using STATA version 17.0 for data analysis.

RESULTS

Among the 80 masses, 55 % (44/80) were confirmed as benign on histopathology, while 45 % were identified as malignant. The sensitivity and specificity of SR was 100 % (95 %CI: 90.0-100) and 97.1 % (95 %CI: 84.7-99.9) respectively. Eleven masses (13.8 %) were inconclusive, reducing specificity to 75 % (95 %CI:59.7-86.8).In ADNEX optimal cut-off for risk of malignancy was 34.1 % with sensitivity of 86.1 % (95 % CI: 70.5-95.3) and specificity of 90.9 % (95 % CI: 78.3-97.5). Considering GIRADS 4-5 and risk threshold of ≥10 % (ORADS 4-5) as predictors of malignancy sensitivity was 100 % (95 %CI: 90.3-100) and specificity was 70.5 % (95 %CI: 54.8-83.2) for GIRADS and ORADS. All reporting systems were comparable (p = 0.7). ADNEX identified 72.7 % (8/11) of inconclusive cases, outperforming GIRADS/ORADS which correctly classified 27.2 % (3/11) cases. When applied to misclassified GIRADS/ORADS 4-5 category, ADNEX demonstrated superior performance by correctly classifying 76.9 % (10/13) masses, while SR achieved correct classification in only 38.5 % (5/13) masses.

CONCLUSION(S)

All classification systems showed comparable accuracy in malignancy risk identification on imaging. GIRADS/ORADS tended to overestimate malignancy risk. The present study recommends a two-step strategy, leveraging higher specificity of ADNEX model for improved stratification of adnexal masses.

Ultrasonography Findings in Ovarian Hemangiomas: Report of Three Cases and Review of the Literature

Ovarian hemangioma is a rare ovarian tumor. The imaging manifestations were rarely mentioned in previous literatures. One of the patients came to hospital with the complaints of an elevation of CA125. Another two patients found a mass in adnexa area accidentally. The oophorectomy procedures were performed and the pathological results of ovarian hemangioma were concluded. We summarized the ultrasound features of three cases retrospectively, of which could provide more information before operation to guide a management direction. A well-defined, regular-shape solid mass in ovary could be considered the possibility of hemangioma, especially when a richly vascularized tumor with prominent blood flow is detected on color Doppler sonography.

Gynecologic Imaging and Reporting Data System for classifying adnexal masses

INTRODUCTION

To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of the diagnostic performance of the so-called Gynecologic Imaging and Report Data System (GI-RADS) for classifying adnexal masses.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

A search for studies reporting about the use of GI-RADS system for classifying adnexal masses from January 2009 to December 2021 was performed in Medline (Pubmed), Google Scholar, Scopus, Cochrane, and Web of Science databases. Pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative likelihood ratios and diagnostic odd ratio (DOR) were calculated. Studies' quality was evaluated using QUADAS-2.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

We identified 510 citations. Ultimately, 26 studies comprising 7350 masses were included. Mean prevalence of ovarian malignancy was 26%. The risk of bias was high in eight studies for domain "patient selection" and low for "index test," "reference test" domains for all studies. Overall, pooled estimated sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, and negative likelihood ratio and DOR of GI-RADS system for classifying adnexal masses were 94% (95% confidence interval [CI]=91-96%), 90% (95% CI=87-92%), 9.1 (95% CI=7.0-11.9), and 0.07 (95% CI=0.05-0.11), and 132 (95% CI=78-221), respectively. Heterogeneity was high for both sensitivity and specificity. Meta-regression showed that multiple observers and study's design explained this heterogeneity among studies.

CONCLUSIONS

GI-RADS system has a good diagnostic performance for classifying adnexal masses.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

Tumour markers and their utility in imaging of abdominal and pelvic malignancies

The utility of tumour biomarkers has increased considerably in the era of personalised medicine and individualised therapy in oncology. Biomarkers may be prognostic or predictive, and only a handful of markers are currently US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved for clinical use. Tumour markers have a wide array of uses such as screening, establishing a differential diagnosis, assessing risk, prognosis, and treatment response, as well as monitoring disease status. Major overlap exists between biomarkers and their associated pathologies; therefore, despite suggestive imaging features, establishing a differential diagnosis may be challenging for the radiologist. We review common biomarkers that are of interest to radiologists such as carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), prostate-specific antigen (PSA), beta human chorionic gonadotropin (β-hCG), carbohydrate antigen 19-9 (CA 19-9), alpha fetoprotein (AFP), and carbohydrate or cancer antigen 125 (CA 125), as well as their associated malignant and non-malignant pathologies. We also present relevant case examples from our practice.

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.

The diagnostic efficacy of Gynecology Imaging Reporting and Data System (GI-RADS): single-center prospective cross-sectional study

Background

To assess the validity and accuracy of GI-RADS classification in the prediction of malignancy and in triaging the management protocol in ovarian lesions.

Results

One hundred fifty-six ovarian lesions were detected in the examined 116 women. The prevalence of malignant tumors was 44%. Overall GI-RADS classification rates were as follows: 41 cases (26.3%) were classified as GI-RADS 1, 26 cases (16 .7%) as GI-RADS 2, 34 cases (21.8%) as GI-RADS 3, 14 cases (8.9%) as GI-RADS 4, and 41 cases (26.3%) as GI-RADS 5. No follow-up was done in GI-RADS 1 patients. A final diagnosis of all GI-RADS 2 ovarian masses such as functional cyst (n = 10), hemorrhagic cysts (n = 8), corpus luteal cysts (n = 6), and some GI-RADS 3 as simple cysts (n = 10) was made by spontaneous resolution of these masses at follow-up after 6 weeks. Fifteen cases of GI-RADS 3 as mature teratoma, serous and mucinous cystadenoma, endometrioma, and ovarian torsion and all GI-RADS 4 and 5 underwent laparoscopic or surgical removal of the ovarian mass with histopathological examination. The diagnostic performance of the GI-RADS in predicting the risk of malignancy in ovarian masses was as follows: 98.11% sensitivity, 95.15% specificity, 91.2% positive predictive value (PPV), 99.2% negative predictive value (NPV), and 20.2 positive likelihood ratio, and the overall accuracy was 96.2% (area under receiver operating curve (AUC) = 0.96, P < 0.001).

Conclusion

GI-RADS classification performs well as a reporting system of the ovarian masses with high diagnostic performance in the prediction of malignancy, and it seems to be a helpful tool in triaging management in patients with ovarian masses.

Trial registration

The trial was registered in the US National Library of Medicine, under clinical trial number NCT03175991. Also, the ethical committee approval number of the Faculty of Medicine, Assiut University, was 17100016 on February 28, 2017.

Imaging and Differential Diagnosis of Ovarian Cancer

Ovarian cancer is the seventh most common cancer affecting women. Despite advances in cancer control and healthcare in general, mortality from ovarian cancer remains unacceptably high due to diagnosis at an advanced stage of the disease. The 5-year survival rate is 47.4% because a majority of ovarian cancers are diagnosed when advanced. Only 14.9% of ovarian cancers are diagnosed when localized where the survival rate is 92.3%. Mortality rate reduction by screening has not been proven in women at an average risk for ovarian cancer. Ultrasound remains the primary modality for assessment of ovarian tumors. The need for standardizing terminology is critical for optimal assessment of the risk of malignancy in an ovarian tumor. The international ovarian tumor analysis group and more recently the American College of Radiology Ovarian - Adnexal Reporting and Data System Committee have published standardized lexicon for ovarian lesions and encourage ultrasound imagers to adopt this standardized terminology. The aim is to apply the lexicon for risk stratification to allow for consistent follow-up and management. Various methodologies have been tested for characterization of adnexal tumors and to assess risk of malignancy preoperatively. Risk assessment models have been studied against the gold standard of a pattern recognition approach and subjective assessment by an experienced imager. The morphologic patterns of ovarian tumors are detailed and features that are more discriminatory than others in suggesting an ovarian malignancy are described. The imaging pathologic correlation for different tumor types is presented. A brief summary of the ovarian cancer pathologic types and staging of cancer is presented. Finally, the current role of transvaginal sonography as a screening modality for ovarian cancer is discussed. Recently published data show encouraging results, that a multimodal approach of screening for ovarian cancer using transvaginal sonography in women with an elevated CA-125 may prove beneficial and cost effective.

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

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate diagnostic performance and inter-reviewer agreement (IRA) of the Gynecologic Imaging Reporting and Data System (GI-RADS) for diagnosis of adnexal masses (AMs) by pelvic ultrasound (US).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A prospective multicenter study included 308 women (mean age, 41 ± 12.5 years; range, 15-73 years) with 325 AMs detected by US. All US examinations were analyzed, and AMs were categorized into five categories according to the GI-RADS classification. We used histopathology and US follow-up as the reference standards for calculating diagnostic performance of GI-RADS for detecting malignant AMs. The Fleiss kappa (κ) tests were applied to evaluate the IRA of GI-RADS scoring results for predicting malignant AMs.

RESULTS

A total of 325 AMs were evaluated: 127 (39.1%) were malignant and 198 (60.9%) were benign. Of 95 AMs categorized as GI-RADS 2 (GR2), none was malignant; of 94 AMs categorized as GR3, three were malignant; of 13 AMs categorized as GR4, six were malignant; and of 123 AMs categorized as GR5, 118 were malignant. On a lesion-based analysis, the GI-RADS had a sensitivity, a specificity, and an accuracy of 92.9%, 97.5%, and 95.7%, respectively, when regarding only those AMs classified as GR5 for predicting malignancy. Considering combined GR4 and GR5 as a predictor for malignancy, the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of GI-RADS were 97.6%, 93.9%, and 95.4%, respectively. The IRA of the GI-RADS category was very good (κ = 0.896). The best cutoff value for predicting malignant AMs was >GR3.

CONCLUSIONS

The GI-RADS is very valuable for improving US structural reports.

KEY POINTS

• There is still a lack of a standard in the assessment of AMs. • GI-RADS is very valuable for improving US structural reports of AMs. • GI-RADS criteria are easy and work at least as well as IOTA.