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.
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.
Entities:
Keywords:
Adnexal diseases; Data systems; Reproducibility of results; Sensitivity and specificity; Ultrasonography
Authors: Yang Guo; Catherine H Phillips; Krista Suarez-Weiss; Lauren A Roller; Mary C Frates; Carol B Benson; Atul B Shinagare Journal: Radiol Imaging Cancer Date: 2022-09
Authors: Julio Vara; Nabil Manzour; Enrique Chacón; Ana López-Picazo; Marta Linares; Maria Ángela Pascual; Stefano Guerriero; Juan Luis Alcázar Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2022-06-27 Impact factor: 6.575
Authors: Priyanka Jha; Akshya Gupta; Timothy M Baran; Katherine E Maturen; Krupa Patel-Lippmann; Hanna M Zafar; Aya Kamaya; Neha Antil; Lisa Barroilhet; Elizabeth A Sadowski Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2022-06-01
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: Wen Ting Xie; Yao Qin Wang; Zhi Sheng Xiang; Zhong Shi Du; Shi Xin Huang; Yi Jie Chen; Li Na Tang Journal: J Ovarian Res Date: 2022-01-23 Impact factor: 4.234