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.