Comparison of the CO-RADS and the RSNA chest CT classification system concerning sensitivity and reliability for the diagnosis of COVID-19 pneumonia.

BACKGROUND: The Radiological Society of North America (RSNA) recently published a chest CT classification system and Dutch Association for Radiology has announced Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) reporting and data system (CO-RADS) to provide guidelines to radiologists who interpret chest CT images of patients with suspected COVID-19 pneumonia. This study aimed to compare CO-RADS and RSNA classification with respect to their sensitivity and reliability for diagnosis of COVID-19 pneumonia. RESULTS: A retrospective study assessed consecutive CT chest imaging of 359 COVID-19-positive patients. Three experienced radiologists who were aware of the final diagnosis of all patients, independently categorized each patient according to CO-RADS and RSNA classification. RT-PCR test performed within one week of chest CT scan was used as a reference standard for calculating sensitivity of each system. Kappa statistics and intraclass correlation coefficient were used to assess reliability of each system. The study group included 359 patients (180 men, 179 women; mean age, 45 ± 16.9 years). Considering combination of CO-RADS 3, 4 and 5 and combination of typical and indeterminate RSNA categories as positive predictors for COVID-19 diagnosis, the overall sensitivity was the same for both classification systems (72.7%). Applying both systems in moderate and severe/critically ill patients resulted in a significant increase in sensitivity (94.7% and 97.8%, respectively). The overall inter-reviewer agreement was excellent for CO-RADS (κ = 0.801), and good for RSNA classification (κ = 0.781). CONCLUSION: CO-RADS and RSNA chest CT classification systems are comparable in diagnosis of COVID-19 pneumonia with similar sensitivity and reliability.

Validity and Reproducibility of the ADNEX MR Scoring System in the Diagnosis of Sonographically Indeterminate Adnexal Masses.

BACKGROUND: The diagnosis of sonographically indeterminate adnexal masses (AM) signifies a major challenge in clinical practice. Early detection and characterization have increased the need for accurate imaging evaluation before treatment. PURPOSE: To assess the validity and reproducibility of the ADNEX MR Scoring system in the diagnosis of sonographically indeterminate AM. STUDY TYPE: A prospective multicenter study. POPULATION: In all, 531 women (mean age, 44 ± 11.2 years; range, 21-79 years) with 572 sonographically indeterminate AM. FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE: 1.5T/precontrast T1 -weighted imaging (WI) fast spin echo (FSE) (in-phase and out-of-phase, with and without fat suppression); T2 -WI FSE; diffusion-WI single-shot echo planner with b-values of 0 and 1000 s/mm2 ; and dynamic contrast-enhanced perfusion T1 -WI liver acquisition with volume acceleration (LAVA). ASSESSMENT: All MRI examinations were evaluated by three radiologists, and the AM were categorized into five scores based on the ADNEX MR Scoring system. Score 1: no AM; 2: benign AM; 3: probably benign AM; 4: indeterminate AM; 5: probably malignant AM. Histopathology and imaging follow-up were used as the standard references for evaluating the validity of the ADNEX MR Scoring system for detecting ovarian malignancy. STATISTICAL TESTS: Four-fold table test, kappa statistics (κ), and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. RESULTS: In all, 136 (23.8%) AM were malignant, and 436 (76.2%) were benign. Of the 350 AM classified as score 2, one (0.3%) was malignant; of the 62 AM classified as score 3, six (9.7%) were malignant; of the 73 AM classified as score 4, 43 (58.9%) were malignant; and of the 87 AM categorized as score 5, 86 (98.9%) were malignant. The best cutoff value for predicting malignant AM was score >3 with sensitivity and specificity of 92.9% and 94.9%, respectively. The interreader agreement of the ADNEX MR Scoring was very good (κ = 0.861). DATA CONCLUSION: The current study supports the high validity and reproducibility of the ADNEX MR Scoring system for the diagnosis of sonographically indeterminate AM. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 1 TECHNICAL EFFICACY STAGE: 2.

Comparison of O-RADS, GI-RADS, and IOTA simple rules regarding malignancy rate, validity, and reliability for diagnosis of adnexal masses.

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.

Gynecology Imaging Reporting and Data System (GI-RADS): diagnostic performance and inter-reviewer agreement.

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.

The utility of diffusion-weighted imaging in improving the sensitivity of LI-RADS classification of small hepatic observations suspected of malignancy.

PURPOSE: We investigated the added value of diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI)/apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) in the categorization of small hepatic observation (≤ 20 mm) detected in patients with chronic liver disease in reference to LI-RADS (liver imaging reporting and data system) classification system. METHODS: We prospectively evaluated 165 patients with chronic liver disease with small hepatic observations (≤ 20 mm) which were previously categorized as LI-RADS grade 3-5 on dynamic contrast-enhanced CT (DCE-CT). All patients were submitted to a functional MRI including DCE and DWI. Using LI-RADS v2017, two radiologists independently evaluated the observations and assigned a LI-RADS category to each observation using DCE-MRI alone and combined DCE-MRI and DWI/ADC. In the combined technique, the radiologists assigned a LI-RADS category based on a modified LI-RADS criteria in which restricted diffusion on DWI was considered a major feature of HCC. We evaluated the inter-reader agreement with Kappa statistics and compared the diagnostic performance of the LI-RADS with two imaging techniques by Fisher's exact test using histopathology as the reference standard. RESULTS: Combined technique in LI-RADS yielded better sensitivities (reader 1, 97% [65/67]; reader 2, 95.5% [64/67]) for HCC diagnosis than DCE-MRI alone (reader 1, 80.6% [54/67], p = 0.005; reader 2, 83.6% [56/67], p = 0.04). The specificities were insignificantly lower in combined technique (reader 1, 88.4% [107/121]; reader 2, 77.7% [94/121]) than in DCE-MRI alone (reader 1, 90.9% [110/121], p = 0.67; reader 2, 79.3% [96/121], p = 0.88). The inter-reader agreement of the LI-RADS scores between combined technique and DCE-MRI was good (κ = 0.765). CONCLUSION: The use of DWI/ADC as an additional major criterion, improved the sensitivity of LI-RADS in the diagnosis of HCC while keeping high specificity.

Efficacy of contrast-enhanced FDG PET/CT in patients awaiting liver transplantation with rising alpha-fetoprotein after bridge therapy of hepatocellular carcinoma.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the diagnostic accuracy and illustrate positive findings of contrast-enhanced fluorine-18 fluoro-D-glucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography (18F-FDG PET/CT) image in patients awaiting liver transplantation (LT) with rising alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) after bridge therapy of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This prospective study included 100 patients who were waiting for LT and who previously underwent locoregional therapy (LRT) of HCC. These patients had rising AFP levels on a routine follow-up examination awaiting LT. All patients underwent a contrast-enhanced 18F-FDG PET/CT examination. We calculated for each patient the maximum standardised uptake value (SUVmax) of the tumour and the ratio of the tumoral SUVmax to the normal-liver SUVmax. The diagnostic accuracy and positive contrast-enhanced findings of 18F-FDG PET/CT were established by histopathology and clinical and imaging follow-up as the reference standards. RESULTS: Contrast-enhanced 18F-FDG PET/CT detected tumour relapse in 78 patients (13 patients had intrahepatic lesions, 10 patients had extrahepatic metastases and 55 patients with combined lesions). The sensitivity, specificity and accuracy values of contrast-enhanced 18F-FDG PET/CT examination in the detection of HCC recurrence were 92.8%, 94.1% and 93%, respectively. A significant correlation was found between the AFP level and SUVmax ratio (r = 0.2283; p = 0.0224). The best threshold for 18F-FDG PET positivity was >1.21. CONCLUSION: Contrast-enhanced 18F-FDG PET/CT is a valuable tool for the detection of intrahepatic HCC recurrence or extrahepatic metastasis following rising AFP levels after LRT of HCC, and should be incorporated during routine workup awaiting LT. KEY POINTS: • 18F-FDG PET/CT is a valuable tool for the detection of HCC recurrence • 18 F-FDG PET/CT should be incorporated during routine workup awaiting liver transplantation • Significant correlation was found between AFP level and SUVmax ratio • The best threshold for 18 F-FDG PET positivity was >1.21 • The ideal cut-off value for AFP was >202.