O-RADS MRI score: analysis of misclassified cases in a prospective multicentric European cohort.

OBJECTIVE: To retrospectively review the causes of categorization errors using O-RADS-MRI score and to determine the presumptive causes of these misclassifications. METHODS: EURAD database was retrospectively queried to identify misclassified lesions. In this cohort, 1194 evaluable patients with 1502 pelvic masses (277 malignant / 1225 benign lesions) underwent standardized MRI to characterize adnexal masses with histology or 2 years' follow-up as a reference standard. An expert radiologist reviewed cases with two junior radiologists and lesions termed misclassified if malignant lesion was scored ≤ 3, a benign lesion was scored ≥ 4, the site of origin was incorrect, or a non-adnexal mass was incorrectly categorized as benign or malignant. RESULTS: There were 139 / 1502 (9.2%) misclassified masses in 116 women including 109 adnexal and 30 non-adnexal masses. False-negative cases corresponded to 16 borderline or invasive malignant adnexal masses rated score ≤ 3 (16 / 139, 11.5%). False-positive cases corresponded to 88 benign masses were rated score 4 (67 / 139, 48.2%) or 5 (18 / 139,12.9%) or considered suspicious non-adnexal lesions (3 / 139, 2.2%). Misclassifications were only due to origin error in 12 adnexal masses (8 benign, 4 malignant) (8.6%, 12 / 139) and 23 non-adnexal masses (18 benign, 5 malignant,16.5%, 23 / 139) perceived respectively as non-adnexal and adnexal masses. Interpretive error (n = 104), failure to recognize technical insufficient exams (n = 9), and perceptual errors (n = 4) were found. Most interpretive was due to misinterpretation of solid tissue or incorrect assignment of mass origin. Eighty-four out of 139 cases were correctly reclassified by the readers with strict adherence to the score rules. CONCLUSION: Most errors were due to misinterpretation of solid tissue or incorrect assignment of mass origin. KEY POINTS: • Prospective assignment of O-RADS-MRI score resulted in misclassification of 9.25% of sonographically indeterminate pelvic masses. • Most errors were interpretive (74.8%) due to misinterpretation of solid tissue as defined by the lexicon or incorrect assignment of mass origin. • Pelvic inflammatory disease is a common source of misclassification (8.9%) (12 / 139).

A short anogenital distance on MRI is a marker of endometriosis.

STUDY QUESTION: Could the anogenital distance (AGD) as assessed by MRI (MRI-AGD) be a diagnostic tool for endometriosis? SUMMARY ANSWER: A short MRI-AGD is a strong diagnostic marker of endometriosis. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: A short clinically assessed AGD (C-AGD) is associated with the presence of endometriosis. STUDY DESIGN SIZE DURATION: This study is a re-analysis of previously published data from a case-control study. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS SETTING METHODS: Women undergoing pelvic surgery from January 2018 to June 2019 and who had a preoperative pelvic MRI were included. C-AGD was measured at the beginning of the surgery by a different operator who was unaware of the endometriosis status. MRI-AGD was measured retrospectively by a senior radiologist who was blinded to the final diagnosis. Two measurements were made: from the posterior wall of the clitoris to the anterior edge of the anal canal (MRI-AGD-AC), and from the posterior wall of the vagina to the anterior edge of the anal canal (MRI-AGD-AF). MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: The study compared MRI-AGD of 67 women with endometriosis to 31 without endometriosis (controls). Average MRI-AGD-AF measurements were 13.3 mm (±3.9) and 21.2 mm (±5.4) in the endometriosis and non-endometriosis groups, respectively (P < 10-5). Average MRI-AGD-AC measurements were 40.4 mm (±7.3) and 51.1 mm (±8.6) for the endometriosis and non-endometriosis groups, respectively (P < 10-5). There was no difference of MRI-AGD in women with and without endometrioma (P = 0.21), or digestive involvement (P = 0.26). Moreover, MRI-AGD values were independent of the revised score of the American Society of Reproductive Medicine and the Enzian score. The diagnosis of endometriosis was negatively associated with both the MRI-AGD-AF (ß = -7.79, 95% CI (-9.88; -5.71), P < 0.001) and MRI-AGD-AC (ß = -9.51 mm, 95% CI (-12.7; 6.24), P < 0.001) in multivariable analysis. Age (ß = +0.31 mm, 95% CI (0.09; 0.53), P = 0.006) and BMI (ß = +0.44 mm, 95% CI (0.17; 0.72), P = 0.001) were positively associated with the MRI-AGD-AC measurements in multivariable analysis. MRI-AGD-AF had an AUC of 0.869 (95% CI (0.79; 0.95)) and outperformed C-AGD. Using an optimal cut-off of 20 mm for MRI-AGD-AF, a sensitivity of 97.01% and a specificity of 70.97% were noted. LIMITATIONS REASONS FOR CAUTION: This was a retrospective analysis and no adolescents had been included. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: This study is consistent with previous works associating a short C-AGD with endometriosis and the absence of correlation with the disease phenotype. MRI-AGD is more accurate than C-AGD in this setting and could be evaluated in the MRI examination of patients with suspected endometriosis. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: N/A. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: The protocol was approved by the 'Groupe Nantais d'Ethique dans le Domaine de la Santé' and registered under reference 02651077.

Borderline ovarian tumors: Guidelines from the French national college of obstetricians and gynecologists (CNGOF).

It is recommended to classify Borderline Ovarian Tumors (BOTs) according to the WHO classification. Transvaginal and suprapubic ultrasonography are recommended for the analysis of an ovarian mass (Grade A). In case of an undetermined ovarian lesion on ultrasonography, it is recommended to perform a pelvic MRI (Grade A) with a score for malignancy (ADNEX MR/O-RADS) (Grade C) included in the report and to formulate a histological hypothesis (Grade C). Pelvic MRI is recommended to characterize a tumor suspected of being BOT (Grade C). It is recommended to evaluate serum levels of HE4 and CA125 and to use the ROMA score for the diagnosis of indeterminate ovarian mass on imaging (grade A). If there is a suspicion of a mucinous BOT on imaging, serum levels of CA 19-9 may be proposed (Grade C). For Early Stages (ES) of BOT, if surgery without risk of tumor rupture is possible, laparoscopy with protected extraction is recommended over laparotomy (Grade C). For treatment of a bilateral serous ES BOT with a strategy to preserve fertility and/or endocrine function, bilateral cystectomy is recommended where possible (Grade B). For mucinous BOTs with a treatment strategy of fertility and/or endocrine function preservation, unilateral salpingo-oophorectomy is recommended (grade C). For mucinous BOTs treated by initial cystectomy, unilateral salpingo-oophorectomy is recommended (grade C). For serous or mucinous ES BOTs, routine hysterectomy is not recommended (Grade C). For ES BOTs, lymphadenectomy is not recommended (Grade C). For ES BOTs, appendectomy is recommended only in case of a macroscopically pathological appendix (Grade C). Restaging surgery is recommended in cases of serous BOTs with micropapillary architecture and an incomplete abdominal cavity inspection during initial surgery (Grade C). Restaging surgery is recommended for mucinous BOTs after initial cystectomy or in cases where the appendix was not examined (Grade C). If restaging surgery is decided for ES BOTs, the following procedures should be performed: peritoneal washing (grade C), omentectomy (grade B), complete exploration of the abdominal cavity with peritoneal biopsies (grade C), visualization of the appendix and appendectomy in case of a pathological macroscopic appearance (grade C) as well as unilateral salpingo-oophorectomy in case of a mucinous BOT initially treated by cystectomy (grade C). In advanced stages (AS) of BOT, it is not recommended to perform a lymphadenectomy as a routine procedure (Grade C). For AS BOT in a patient with a desire to fall pregnant, conservative treatment involving preservation of the uterus and all or part of the ovary may be proposed (Grade C). Restaging surgery aimed at removing all lesions, not performed initially, is recommended for AS BOTs (Grade C). After treatment, follow-up for a duration greater than 5 years is recommended due to the median recurrence time of BOTs (Grade B). It is recommended that a systematic clinical examination be carried out during follow-up of a treated BOT (Grade B). If the determination of tumor markers is normal preoperatively, the routine dosage of tumor markers in BOT follow-up is not recommended (Grade C). In case of an initial elevation in serum CA 125 levels, it is recommended to monitor CA 125 during follow up (Grade B). In case of conservative treatment, it is recommended to use transvaginal and transabdominal ultrasound during follow up of a treated BOT (Grade B). In the event of a BOT recurrence in a woman of childbearing age, a second conservative treatment may be proposed (Grade C). A consultation with a physician specialized in Assisted Reproductive Technique (ART) should be offered in the case of BOTs in women of childbearing age (Grade C). When possible, a conservative surgical strategy is recommended to preserve fertility in women of childbearing age (Grade C). In the case of optimally treated BOT, there is no evidence to contraindicate the use of ART. The use of hormonal contraception after serous or mucinous BOT is not contraindicated (Grade C). After management of mucinous BOT, for women under 45 years, given the benefit of Hormonal Replacement Therapy (HRT) on cardiovascular and bone risks, and the lack of hormone sensitivity of mucinous BOTs, it is recommended to offer HRT (Grade C). Over 45 years of age, HRT can be prescribed in case of a climacteric syndrome after individual benefit to risk assessment (Grade C).

Comparison of breast density assessment between human eye and automated software on digital and synthetic mammography: Impact on breast cancer risk.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the agreement between automatic assessment software of breast density based on artificial intelligence (AI) and visual assessment by a senior and a junior radiologist, as well as the impact on the assessment of breast cancer risk (BCR) at 5 years. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively included 311 consecutive women (mean age, 55.6±8.5 [SD]; range: 40-74 years) without a personal history of breast cancer who underwent routine mammography between January 1, 2019 and February 28, 2019. Mammographic breast density (MBD) was independently evaluated by a junior and a senior reader on digital mammography (DM) and synthetic mammography (SM) using BI-RADS (5th edition) and by an AI software. For each MBD, BCR at 5 years was estimated per woman by the AI software. Interobserver agreement for MBD between the two readers and the AI software were evaluated by quadratic κ coefficients. Reproducibility of BCR was assessed by intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). RESULTS: Agreement for MBD assessment on DM and SM was almost perfect between senior and junior radiologists (κ=0.88 [95% CI: 0.84-0.92] and κ=0.86 [95% CI: 0.82-0.90], respectively) and substantial between the senior radiologist and AI (κ=0.79; 95% CI: 0.73-0.84). There was substantial agreement between DM and SM for the senior radiologist (κ=0.79; 95% CI: 0.74-0.84). BCR evaluation at 5 years was highly reproducible between the two radiologists on DM and SM (ICC=0.98 [95% CI: 0.97-0.98] for both), between BCR evaluation based on DM and SM evaluated by the senior (ICC=0.96; 95% CI: 0.95-0.97) or junior radiologist (ICC=0.97; 95% CI: 0.96-0.98) and between the senior radiologist and AI (ICC=0.96; 95% CI: 0.95-0.97). CONCLUSION: This preliminary study demonstrates a very good agreement for BCR evaluation based on the evaluation of MBD by a senior radiologist, junior radiologist and AI software.

[Borderline Ovarian Tumours: CNGOF Guidelines for Clinical Practice - Imaging]. / Tumeurs frontières de l'ovaire. Recommandations pour la pratique clinique du CNGOF ­ Imagerie.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the place of imaging and the performance of different imaging techniques (transvaginal ultrasound with or without Doppler, scoring, CT, MRI) to differentiate benign tumour, borderline ovarian tumour (BOT) and malignant ovarian tumor. Differentiate the histological subtypes of BOT (serous, sero-mucinous, mucinous) and prediction in imaging of the possibility of conservative treatment. METHODS: The research was carried out over the last 16 years using the terms "MeSH" based on the query of the Medline® database and supplemented by the review of references contained in the meta-analyzes, systematic reviews and original articles included. RESULTS: Endo-vaginal and suprapubic ultrasonography is recommended for analysis of an ovarian mass (grade A). In the case of ultrasound by a referent, subjective analysis is the recommended technique (grade A). In case of echography by a non-referent, the use of "Simple Rules" is recommended (grade A) and should be best combined with subjective analysis to rejoin the performance of a sonographer refer (grade A). In cases of undetermined ovarian lesions in endovaginal ultrasound and suprapubic ultrasound, it is recommended to perform a pelvic MRI (grade A). The MRI protocol should include T2, T1, T1 sequences with fat saturation, diffusion, injected dynamics, and after gadolinium injection (grade B). To characterize an MRI-adnexal image, it is recommended to include a risk score for malignancy (ADNEX-MR/O-RADS) (grade C) in the report and to formulate an anatomopathological hypothesis (Grade C). The predictive signs of benignity in front of a cyst with endocystic vegetations are the low number, the small size, the presence of calcifications and the absence of Doppler flow in case of size greater than 10mm in echography (LP 4) and a curve of type 1 MRI (LP4). MRI is recommended for suspicious lesions of BOT in ultrasound (grade B) or indeterminate lesions in ultrasound (grade A). There is no data to support the usefulness of CT or PET-CT for BOT. Morphological criteria in ultrasound and MRI exist to differentiate BOT from invasive tumors regardless of grade (NP 2). Pelvic MRI is recommended to characterize a tumor suggestive of ultrasound BOT (grade C). No recommendations can be made about the use of combined ultrasound, biological, and menopausal status scores for the diagnosis of BOT. The diagnostic performance of imaging to detect peritoneal implants of BOT is not known. The assessment of the invasiveness of peritoneal implants of imaging BOT has not been evaluated. The association of macroscopic signs in MRI makes it possible to differentiate the different subtypes - serous, sero-mucinous and mucinous (intestinal type) - of BOT, despite the overlap of certain presentations (LP3). The analysis of macroscopic MRI signs must be performed to differentiate the different subtypes of TFO (grade C). No recommendation can be made on imaging prediction of the possibility of conservative BOT treatment.