Pattern Recognition or Adnexal MR Scoring System: Which Is More Accurate in Evaluating Adnexal Lesions?

PURPOSE: This study aims to compare the accuracy of the ADNEX MR scoring system and pattern recognition system to evaluate adnexal lesions indeterminate on the US exam. METHODS: In this cross-sectional retrospective study, pelvic DCE-MRI of 245 patients with 340 adnexal masses was studied based on the ADNEX MR scoring system and pattern recognition system. RESULTS: ADNEX MR scoring system with a sensitivity of 96.6% and specificity of 91% has an accuracy of 92.9%. The pattern recognition system's sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy are 95.8%, 93.3%, and 94.7%, respectively. PPV and NPV for the ADNEX MR scoring system were 85.1 and 98.1, respectively. PPV and NPV for the pattern recognition system were 89.7% and 97.7%, respectively. The area under the ROC curve for the ADNEX MR scoring system and pattern recognition system is 0.938 (95% CI, 0.909-0.967) and 0.950 (95% CI, 0.922-0.977). Pairwise comparison of these AUCs showed no significant difference (p = 0.052). CONCLUSION: The pattern recognition system is less sensitive than the ADNEX MR scoring system, yet more specific.

Comparison of Qualitative (Time Intensity Curve Analysis), Semi-Quantitative, and Quantitative Multi-Phase 3T DCEMRI Parameters as Predictors of Malignancy in Adnexal.

Objective: The present study aimed to compare the qualitative (time intensity curve analysis), the semi-quantitative and the quantitative multiphase 3T dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) MRI parameters as predictors of malignancy in adnexal masses. Materials and Methods: In this prospective study, women with an adnexal mass who were scheduled for surgical resection or were followed for more than one year period to confirm the benignity of their lesions, underwent multiphase 3T DCE-MRI. The qualitative (time intensity curve), semi-quantitative (SImax, SIrel, WIR) and quantitative (Ktrans, Kep, Vb) analyses were performed on DCE-MRI sequences and their predictive values were compared. Results: A total of 17 benign and 14 malignant lesions were included. According to the qualitative analysis, none of the lesions with Type I time intensity curves (TIC) were malignant and none of the masses with Type III TICs were benign. The accuracy of the quantitative parameters in detection of malignancy was found to be higher than that of semi-quantitative variables, particularly when calculated for a small ROI within the high signal area of the mass (sROI) rather than the largest ROI including the whole mass (lROI), and when inter-MRI variations were omitted using ratios. The Kep(tumor)/Kep(myometrium) ratio measured from sROI was the best parameter for differentiating a malignant lesion with a sensitivity of 100% and a specificity of 92.3%. Conclusion: We concluded that a Type I TIC confirms a benign lesion, and a type III TIC confirms the malignancy and further evaluation is not recommended for these lesions. So complementary quantitative analysis is only recommended for adnexal masses with type II TICs.