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.

The value of high-resolution MRI technique in patients with rectal carcinoma: pre-operative assessment of mesorectal fascia involvement, circumferential resection margin and local staging.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of the study was to identify the accuracy of high-resolution MRI in the pre-operative assessment of mesorectal fascia involvement, circumfrential resection margin (CRM) and local staging in patients with rectal carcinoma. MATERIAL/METHODS: The study included 56 patients: 32 male and 24 female. All patients underwent high-resolution MRI and had confirmed histopathological diagnosis of rectal cancer located within 15 cm from the anal verge, followed by surgery. MRI findings were compared with pathological and surgical results. RESULTS: The overall accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of MRI-based T-staging were 92.8, 88.8%, 96.5%, 96%, and 90.3%, respectively. The accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV of MRI-based assessment of CRM were 94.6%, 84.6%, 97.6%, 91.4, and 94.6%, respectively. The accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV of MRI-based N-staging were 82.1%, 75%, 67.3%, 60%, and 86.1%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Preoperative high-resolution rectal MRI is accurate in predicting tumor stage and CRM involvement. MRI is a precise diagnostic tool to select patients who may benefit from neo-adjuvant therapy and to avoid overtreatment in those patients who can proceed directly to surgery.