Patrick N Pereira1, Luis O Sarian2, Adriana Yoshida2, Karla G Araújo2, Ricardo H O Barros3, Ana C Baião2, Daniella B Parente4, Sophie Derchain2. 1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology,State University of Campinas-Unicamp, Campinas Faculty of Medical Sciences, São Paulo, Brazil; Section of Imaginology, Sumaré State Hospital, Sumaré, São Paulo, Brazil. 2. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology,State University of Campinas-Unicamp, Campinas Faculty of Medical Sciences, São Paulo, Brazil. 3. Section of Imaginology, Sumaré State Hospital, Sumaré, São Paulo, Brazil. 4. Department of Radiology, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro National Faculty of Medicine, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil.
Abstract
PURPOSE: We aimed to evaluate the ADNEX MR scoring system for the prediction of adnexal mass malignancy, using a simplified magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) protocol. METHODS: In this prospective study, 200 patients with 237 adnexal masses underwent MRI between February 2014 and February 2016 and were followed until February 2017. Two radiologists calculated ADNEX MR scores using an MRI protocol with a simplified dynamic study, not a high temporal resolution study, as originally proposed. Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, likelihood ratios, and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve were calculated (cutoff for malignancy, score ≥ 4). The reference standard was histopathologic diagnosis or imaging findings during >12 months of follow-up. RESULTS: Of 237 lesions, 79 (33.3%) were malignant. The ADNEX MR scoring system, using a simplified MRI protocol, showed 94.9% (95% confidence interval [CI], 87.5%-98.6%) sensitivity and 97.5% (95% CI, 93.6%-99.3%) specificity in malignancy prediction; it was thus highly accurate, like the original system. The level of interobserver agreement on simplified scoring was high (κ = 0.91). CONCLUSION: In a tertiary cancer center, the ADNEX MR scoring system, even based on a simplified MRI protocol, performed well in the prediction of malignant adnexal masses. This scoring system may enable the standardization of MRI reporting on adnexal masses, thereby improving communication between radiologists and gynecologists.
PURPOSE: We aimed to evaluate the ADNEX MR scoring system for the prediction of adnexal mass malignancy, using a simplified magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) protocol. METHODS: In this prospective study, 200 patients with 237 adnexal masses underwent MRI between February 2014 and February 2016 and were followed until February 2017. Two radiologists calculated ADNEX MR scores using an MRI protocol with a simplified dynamic study, not a high temporal resolution study, as originally proposed. Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, likelihood ratios, and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve were calculated (cutoff for malignancy, score ≥ 4). The reference standard was histopathologic diagnosis or imaging findings during >12 months of follow-up. RESULTS: Of 237 lesions, 79 (33.3%) were malignant. The ADNEX MR scoring system, using a simplified MRI protocol, showed 94.9% (95% confidence interval [CI], 87.5%-98.6%) sensitivity and 97.5% (95% CI, 93.6%-99.3%) specificity in malignancy prediction; it was thus highly accurate, like the original system. The level of interobserver agreement on simplified scoring was high (κ = 0.91). CONCLUSION: In a tertiary cancer center, the ADNEX MR scoring system, even based on a simplified MRI protocol, performed well in the prediction of malignant adnexal masses. This scoring system may enable the standardization of MRI reporting on adnexal masses, thereby improving communication between radiologists and gynecologists.
Authors: Jason E Dodge; Allan L Covens; Christina Lacchetti; Laurie M Elit; Tien Le; Michaela Devries-Aboud; Michael Fung-Kee-Fung Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2012-04-06 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Brian C Allen; Keyanoosh Hosseinzadeh; Shadi A Qasem; Adam Varner; John R Leyendecker Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2014-06 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Jeroen Kaijser; Vincent Vandecaveye; Christophe M Deroose; Andrea Rockall; Isabelle Thomassin-Naggara; Tom Bourne; Dirk Timmerman Journal: Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol Date: 2014-04-13 Impact factor: 5.237
Authors: Dirk Timmerman; Ben Van Calster; Antonia Testa; Luca Savelli; Daniela Fischerova; Wouter Froyman; Laure Wynants; Caroline Van Holsbeke; Elisabeth Epstein; Dorella Franchi; Jeroen Kaijser; Artur Czekierdowski; Stefano Guerriero; Robert Fruscio; Francesco P G Leone; Alberto Rossi; Chiara Landolfo; Ignace Vergote; Tom Bourne; Lil Valentin Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2016-01-19 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Elizabeth A Sadowski; Isabelle Thomassin-Naggara; Andrea Rockall; Katherine E Maturen; Rosemarie Forstner; Priyanka Jha; Stephanie Nougaret; Evan S Siegelman; Caroline Reinhold Journal: Radiology Date: 2022-01-18 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Isabelle Thomassin-Naggara; Edouard Poncelet; Aurelie Jalaguier-Coudray; Adalgisa Guerra; Laure S Fournier; Sanja Stojanovic; Ingrid Millet; Nishat Bharwani; Valerie Juhan; Teresa M Cunha; Gabriele Masselli; Corinne Balleyguier; Caroline Malhaire; Nicolas F Perrot; Elizabeth A Sadowski; Marc Bazot; Patrice Taourel; Raphaël Porcher; Emile Darai; Caroline Reinhold; Andrea G Rockall Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2020-01-03