OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to describe a new reporting system called the Gynecologic Imaging Reporting and Data System (GI-RADS) for reporting findings in adnexal masses based on transvaginal sonography. METHODS: A total of 171 women (mean age, 39 years; range, 16-77 years) suspected of having an adnexal mass were evaluated by transvaginal sonography before treatment. Pattern recognition analysis and color Doppler blood flow location were used for determining the presumptive diagnosis. Then the GI-RADS was used, with the following classifications: GI-RADS 1, definitively benign; GI-RADS 2, very probably benign; GI-RADS 3, probably benign; GI-RADS 4, probably malignant; and GI-RADS 5, very probably malignant. Patients with GI-RADS 1 and 2 tumors were treated expectantly. All GI-RADS 3, 4, and 5 tumors were removed surgically, and a definitive histologic diagnosis was obtained. The GI-RADS classification was compared with final histologic diagnosis. RESULTS: A total of 187 masses were evaluated. The prevalence rate for malignant tumors was 13.4%. Overall GI-RADS classification rates were as follows: GI-RADS 1, 4 cases (2.1%); GI-RADS 2, 52 cases (27.8%); GI-RADS 3, 90 cases (48.1%); GI-RADS 4, 13 cases (7%); and GI-RADS 5, 28 cases (15%). The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and accuracy were 92%, 97%, 85%, 99%, and 96%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Our proposed reporting system showed good diagnostic performance. It is simple and could facilitate communication between sonographers/sonologists and clinicians.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to describe a new reporting system called the Gynecologic Imaging Reporting and Data System (GI-RADS) for reporting findings in adnexal masses based on transvaginal sonography. METHODS: A total of 171 women (mean age, 39 years; range, 16-77 years) suspected of having an adnexal mass were evaluated by transvaginal sonography before treatment. Pattern recognition analysis and color Doppler blood flow location were used for determining the presumptive diagnosis. Then the GI-RADS was used, with the following classifications: GI-RADS 1, definitively benign; GI-RADS 2, very probably benign; GI-RADS 3, probably benign; GI-RADS 4, probably malignant; and GI-RADS 5, very probably malignant. Patients with GI-RADS 1 and 2 tumors were treated expectantly. All GI-RADS 3, 4, and 5 tumors were removed surgically, and a definitive histologic diagnosis was obtained. The GI-RADS classification was compared with final histologic diagnosis. RESULTS: A total of 187 masses were evaluated. The prevalence rate for malignant tumors was 13.4%. Overall GI-RADS classification rates were as follows: GI-RADS 1, 4 cases (2.1%); GI-RADS 2, 52 cases (27.8%); GI-RADS 3, 90 cases (48.1%); GI-RADS 4, 13 cases (7%); and GI-RADS 5, 28 cases (15%). The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and accuracy were 92%, 97%, 85%, 99%, and 96%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Our proposed reporting system showed good diagnostic performance. It is simple and could facilitate communication between sonographers/sonologists and clinicians.
Authors: Michal Migda; Migda Bartosz; Marian S Migda; Marcin Kierszk; Gieryn Katarzyna; Marek Maleńczyk Journal: J Ovarian Res Date: 2018-11-03 Impact factor: 4.234
Authors: Dirk Timmerman; François Planchamp; Tom Bourne; Chiara Landolfo; Andreas du Bois; Luis Chiva; David Cibula; Nicole Concin; Daniela Fischerova; Wouter Froyman; Guillermo Gallardo Madueño; Birthe Lemley; Annika Loft; Liliana Mereu; Philippe Morice; Denis Querleu; Antonia Carla Testa; Ignace Vergote; Vincent Vandecaveye; Giovanni Scambia; Christina Fotopoulou Journal: Int J Gynecol Cancer Date: 2021-06-10 Impact factor: 3.437