Modified MR scoring system for assessment of sonographically indeterminate ovarian and adnexal masses in the absence of dynamic contrast-enhanced

OBJECTIVES

Dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) MRI is not available in all imaging centres to investigate adnexal masses. We proposed modified magnetic resonance (MR) scoring system based on an assessment of the enhancement of the solid tissue on early phase postcontrast series and diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) with apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) map and investigated the validity of this protocols in the current study.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this cross-sectional retrospective study, pelvic MRI of a total of 245 patients with 340 adnexal masses were studied based on the proposed modified scoring system and ADNEX MR scoring system.

RESULTS

Modified scoring system with the sensitivity of 87.3% and specificity of 94.6% has an accuracy of 92.1%. Sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of ADNEX MR scoring system is 96.6%, 91%, and 92.9%, respectively. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for the modified scoring system and ADNEX MR scoring system is 0.909 (with 0.870-0.938 95% confidence interval [CI]) and 0.938 (with 0.907-0.961 95% CI), respectively. Pairwise comparison of these area under the curves showed no significant difference (P = .053).

CONCLUSIONS

Modified scoring system is less sensitive than the ADNEX MR scoring system and more specific but the accuracy is not significantly different.

ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE

According to our study, MR scoring system based on subjective assessment of the enhancement of the solid tissue on early phase postcontrast series and DWI with ADC map could be applicable in imaging centres that DCE is not available.

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.

Magnetic resonance scoring system for assessment of adnexal masses: added value of diffusion-weighted imaging including apparent diffusion coefficient map

OBJECTIVES

To validate prospectively the ADNEX magnetic resonance (MR) scoring system to assess adnexal masses and to evaluate a new, modified ADNEX MR scoring system that incorporates diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) with apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) mapping.

METHODS

Between January 2015 and September 2018, 323 consecutive women with adnexal masses diagnosed on transvaginal ultrasound (TVS) underwent standardized MR imaging (MRI) including diffusion and dynamic contrast-enhanced sequences. Of these, 131 underwent subsequent surgery. For interpretation of the MRI examinations, we applied the five-category ADNEX MR scoring system, along with a modified scoring system including DWI with ADC mapping. For both scoring systems, a score was given for all adnexal masses. Histological diagnosis was considered as the gold standard and lesions were classified as benign or malignant. The difference between the predictive values for diagnosing malignancy of the classical and modified scoring systems was assessed on the basis of the areas under the receiver-operating-characteristics (AUC) curves. The sensitivity and specificity for diagnosing malignancy of each score were also calculated.

RESULTS

Among the 131 women with adnexal mass(es) diagnosed on TVS who underwent MRI and subsequent surgery, the surgery revealed 161 adnexal masses in 126 women; five women had no mass. Histological examination confirmed 161 adnexal masses, of which all had been detected on MRI: 32 malignant tumors, 15 borderline tumors, which were classified as part of the malignant group (n = 47), and 114 benign lesions. The AUC for prediction of a malignant lesion was 0.938 (95% CI, 0.902-0.975) using the classical ADNEX MR scoring system and 0.974 (95% CI, 0.953-0.996) using the modified scoring system. Pairwise comparison of these AUCs revealed a significant difference (P = 0.0032). The sensitivity and specificity for diagnosing malignancy with an ADNEX MR score of 4 or more were 95.5% and 86.6%, respectively, using the classic scoring system, and 95.7% and 93.3%, respectively, using the modified scoring system.

CONCLUSION

DWI with ADC mapping could be integrated into the ADNEX MR scoring system to improve specificity, thereby potentially optimizing clinical management by avoiding unnecessary surgery. © 2020 International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.