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.
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.
Authors: Neha Antil; Preethi R Raghu; Luyao Shen; Thodsawit Tiyarattanachai; Edwina M Chang; Craig W K Ferguson; Amanzo A Ho; Amelie M Lutz; Aladin J Mariano; L Nayeli Morimoto; Aya Kamaya Journal: Abdom Radiol (NY) Date: 2022-06-28
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
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