Performance of IOTA Simple Rules, Simple Rules risk assessment, ADNEX model and O-RADS in differentiating between benign and malignant adnexal lesions in North American women

Differentiating Benign From Malignant Ovarian Masses With Solid Components: Diagnostic Performance of CEUS Combined With IOTA Simple Rules and O-RADS

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to apply the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis (IOTA) Simple Rules (SR), the Ovarian-Adnexal Reporting and Data System (O-RADS) and contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) in an identical cohort of Chinese patients and to analyze their performance in discrimination of ovarian masses with solid components.

METHODS

This was a two-center retrospective study that included a total of 94 ovarian lesions in 86 women enrolled from January 2018 to February 2023. The lesions were classified by using the IOTA terminology and CEUS was performed for the lesions exhibiting solid components on ultrasonography, IOTA SR and O-RADS were applied, and CEUS images were analyzed retrospectively. We assessed the time to wash-in, time to peak intensity (PI), PI compared to myometrium, and time to wash-out, and observed statistically significant differences between benign and malignant lesions in the first three parameters. CEUS characteristics were employed to determine CEUS scores for benign (score 0) and malignant (score 3) lesions. Subsequently, the lesions were reassessed based on the IOTA SR and O-RADS classifications and CEUS scores. The sensitivity, specificity, and area under the receiver-operating-characteristics curve (AUC) of the different models were also determined.

RESULTS

Among the 94 ovarian lesions, 46 (48.9%) were benign and 48 (51.1%) were malignant. It was found that in the 60 lesions to which the SR could be applied, the sensitivity, specificity, and AUC was 0.900, 0.667, and 0.783, respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, and AUC of O-RADS was observed to be 1.000, 0.283 and 0.641, respectively. When SR and O-RADS were combined with CEUS, their sensitivity, specificity, and AUC values were increased to 0.917, 0.891, 0.904, and 0.958, 0.783, 0.871, respectively.

CONCLUSION

IOTA SR and O-RADS exhibited relatively low specificity in differentiating malignant from benign ovarian lesions with the solid components, and their diagnostic performance can be significantly improved when combined with CEUS.

Comparison of O-RADS with the ADNEX model and IOTA SR for risk stratification of adnexal lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Purpose

This study aims to systematically compare the diagnostic performance of the Ovarian-Adnexal Reporting and Data System with the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis Simple Rules and the Assessment of Different NEoplasias in the adneXa model for risk stratification of ovarian cancer and adnexal masses.

Methods

A literature search of online databases for relevant studies up to July 2023 was conducted by two independent reviewers. The summary estimates were pooled with the hierarchical summary receiver-operating characteristic model. The quality of the included studies was assessed with the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 and the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-Comparative Tool. Metaregression and subgroup analyses were performed to explore the impact of varying clinical settings.

Results

A total of 13 studies met the inclusion criteria. The pooled sensitivity and specificity for eight head-to-head studies between the Ovarian-Adnexal Reporting and Data System and the Assessment of Different NEoplasias in the adneXa model were 0.96 (95% CI 0.92-0.98) and 0.82 (95% CI 0.71-0.90) vs. 0.94 (95% CI 0.91-0.95) and 0.83 (95% CI 0.77-0.88), respectively, and for seven head-to-head studies between the Ovarian-Adnexal Reporting and Data System and the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis Simple Rules, the pooled sensitivity and specificity were 0.95 (95% CI 0.93-0.97) and 0.75 (95% CI 0.62-0.85) vs. 0.91 (95% CI 0.82-0.96) and 0.86 (95% CI 0.76-0.93), respectively. No significant differences were found between the Ovarian-Adnexal Reporting and Data System and the Assessment of Different NEoplasias in the adneXa model as well as the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis Simple Rules in terms of sensitivity (P = 0.57 and P = 0.21) and specificity (P = 0.87 and P = 0.12). Substantial heterogeneity was observed among the studies for all three guidelines.

Conclusion

All three guidelines demonstrated high diagnostic performance, and no significant differences in terms of sensitivity or specificity were observed between the three guidelines.

Comparison of Simple Ultrasound Rules by International Ovarian Tumor Analysis (IOTA) with RMI-1 and RMI-4 (Risk of Malignancy Index) in Preoperative Differentiation of Benign and Malignant Adnexal Masses

Background

IOTA proposed Simple Ultrasound Rules in 2009 for preoperative diagnosis of ovarian masses based on ultrasound only. It is an accurate, simple and inexpensive method. RMI, however, requires CA125 level. While RMI-4 is the latest, RMI-1 is still the most widely used method. The present study was done to compare IOTA Rules with RMI-1 and RMI-4.

Purpose

To differentiate benign and malignant adnexal masses preoperatively using IOTA simple rules and compare its accuracy with RMI-1 and RMI-4.

Methods

A prospective observational study was performed from 1st November 2019 to 31st March 2021 in the Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, ABVIMS and Dr. RML Hospital, New Delhi. This study was conducted on 70 patients with adnexal masses who underwent pre-operative evaluation using IOTA Simple Rules, RMI-1 and RMI-4. Histopathology was used to compare the results.

Results

Out of 70 patients, 59 (84.3%) cases were benign and 11 (15.7%) were malignant. The IOTA Rules were applicable to 60 cases (85.7%), and the results were inconclusive in 10 cases (14.3%). Where applicable, the sensitivity and specificity of the IOTA Rules (88.9% and 94.1%, respectively) were significantly higher than RMI-1 (45.5% and 93.2%, respectively) and RMI-4 (45.5% and 89.8%, respectively). When inconclusive results were included as malignant, the sensitivity of the IOTA Rules increased (88.9% vs 90.9%); however, the specificity decreased (94.1% vs 81.4%).

Conclusion

IOTA Simple Rules were more accurate at diagnosing benign from malignant adnexal masses than RMI-1 and RMI-4. However, the rules were not applicable to 14% of the cases.

A modified CEUS risk stratification model for adnexal masses with solid components: prospective multicenter study and risk adjustment

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the additional advantages of integrating contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) into the Ovarian-Adnexal Reporting and Data System (O-RADS) ultrasound (US) for the characterization of adnexal lesions with solid components.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This prospective multicenter study recruited women suspected of having adnexal lesions with solid components between September 2021 and December 2022. All patients scheduled for surgery underwent preoperative CEUS and US examinations. The lesions were categorized according to the O-RADS US system, and quantitative CEUS indexes were recorded. Pathological results served as the reference standard. Univariable and multivariable analyses were performed to identify risk factors for malignancy in adnexal lesions with solid components. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was employed to assess diagnostic performance.

RESULTS

A total of 180 lesions in 175 women were included in the study. Among these masses, 80 were malignant and 100 were benign. Multivariable analysis revealed that serum CA-125, the presence of acoustic shadowing, and peak intensity (PI) ratio (PImass/PIuterus) of solid components on CEUS were independently associated with adnexal malignancy. The modified CEUS risk stratification model demonstrated superior diagnostic value in assessing adnexal lesions with solid components compared to O-RADS US (AUC: 0.91 vs 0.78, p < 0.001) and exhibited comparable performance to the Assessment of Different NEoplasias in the adnexa (ADNEX) model (AUC 0.91 vs 0.86, p = 0.07).

CONCLUSION

Our findings underscore the potential value of CEUS as an adjunctive tool for enhancing the precision of diagnostic evaluations of O-RADS US.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT

The promising performance of the modified CEUS risk stratification model suggests its potential to mitigate unnecessary surgeries in the characterization of adnexal lesions with solid components.

KEY POINTS

• The additional value of CEUS to O-RADS US in distinguishing between benign and malignant adnexal lesions with solid components requires further evaluation. • The modified CEUS risk stratification model displayed superior diagnostic value and specificity in characterizing adnexal lesions with solid components when compared to O-RADS US. • The inclusion of CEUS demonstrated potential in reducing the need for unnecessary surgeries in the characterization of adnexal lesions with solid components.

Developing a Nomogram for Prioritizing Hysteroscopy in Endometrial Cancer Diagnosis: A Case-Control Study

(1) Background: The pandemic led to significant healthcare disruptions, resulting in postponed surgeries and extended waiting times for non-urgent treatments, including hysteroscopies essential for diagnosing endometrial cancer. This study aims to formulate a risk stratification model to enhance the prioritization of hysteroscopy procedures in Brazil; (2) Methods: A case-control study was conducted at Vila Santa Catarina Hospital in São Paulo, analyzing the medical records of 2103 women who underwent hysteroscopy between March 2019 and March 2022. We used bivariate analysis and multivariate linear regression to identify risk factors associated with endometrial cancer and formulate a nomogram; (3) Results: The findings revealed a 5.5% incidence of pre-invasive and invasive endometrial disease in the study population, with an average waiting time of 120 days for hysteroscopy procedures. The main risk factors identified were hypertension, diabetes, postmenopausal bleeding, and obesity; (4) Conclusions: This research highlights the urgent need for efficient prioritization of hysteroscopy procedures in the wake of the pandemic. The developed nomogram is an innovative tool for identifying patients at higher risk of endometrial cancer, thus facilitating timely diagnosis and treatment and improving overall patient outcomes in a strained healthcare system.

ADNEX risk prediction model for diagnosis of ovarian cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis of external validation studies

Objectives

To conduct a systematic review of studies externally validating the ADNEX (Assessment of Different Neoplasias in the adnexa) model for diagnosis of ovarian cancer and to present a meta-analysis of its performance.

Design

Systematic review and meta-analysis of external validation studies.

Data sources

Medline, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, and Europe PMC, from 15 October 2014 to 15 May 2023.

Eligibility criteria for selecting studies

All external validation studies of the performance of ADNEX, with any study design and any study population of patients with an adnexal mass. Two independent reviewers extracted the data. Disagreements were resolved by discussion. Reporting quality of the studies was scored with the TRIPOD (Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis) reporting guideline, and methodological conduct and risk of bias with PROBAST (Prediction model Risk Of Bias Assessment Tool). Random effects meta-analysis of the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), sensitivity and specificity at the 10% risk of malignancy threshold, and net benefit and relative utility at the 10% risk of malignancy threshold were performed.

Results

47 studies (17 007 tumours) were included, with a median study sample size of 261 (range 24-4905). On average, 61% of TRIPOD items were reported. Handling of missing data, justification of sample size, and model calibration were rarely described. 91% of validations were at high risk of bias, mainly because of the unexplained exclusion of incomplete cases, small sample size, or no assessment of calibration. The summary AUC to distinguish benign from malignant tumours in patients who underwent surgery was 0.93 (95% confidence interval 0.92 to 0.94, 95% prediction interval 0.85 to 0.98) for ADNEX with the serum biomarker, cancer antigen 125 (CA125), as a predictor (9202 tumours, 43 centres, 18 countries, and 21 studies) and 0.93 (95% confidence interval 0.91 to 0.94, 95% prediction interval 0.85 to 0.98) for ADNEX without CA125 (6309 tumours, 31 centres, 13 countries, and 12 studies). The estimated probability that the model has use clinically in a new centre was 95% (with CA125) and 91% (without CA125). When restricting analysis to studies with a low risk of bias, summary AUC values were 0.93 (with CA125) and 0.91 (without CA125), and estimated probabilities that the model has use clinically were 89% (with CA125) and 87% (without CA125).

Conclusions

The results of the meta-analysis indicated that ADNEX performed well in distinguishing between benign and malignant tumours in populations from different countries and settings, regardless of whether the serum biomarker, CA125, was used as a predictor. A key limitation was that calibration was rarely assessed.

Systematic review registration

PROSPERO CRD42022373182.

Evaluation of American College of Radiology Ovarian-Adnexal Reporting and Data System ultrasound to predict malignancy risk in adnexal lesions

AIMS

To validate the diagnostic performance of Ovarian-Adnexal Reporting and Data System (O-RADS) ultrasound for preoperative adnexal lesions in an external center. The secondary aim was to evaluate the performance of a strategy test including O-RADS ultrasound evaluation and subjective assessment of higher malignant risk lesions.

METHODS

One hundred thirty patients with 158 ovarian-adnexal lesions were enrolled in the study. Each lesion was assigned an O-RADS score after real-time ultrasound examination by one experienced radiologist. A second subjective assessment by an expert was performed for O-RADS 4 and O-RADS 5 lesions. The histopathological diagnosis was used as the reference standard.

RESULTS

A total of 126 benign and 32 malignant adnexal masses were included in the study. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of O-RADS ultrasound was 0.950, with a cutoff value > O-RADS 3. The sensitivity, specificity, and negative and positive predictive values were 100% (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.867-1), 83.3% (95% CI, 0.754-0.892), 60.4% (95% CI, 0.460-0.732), and 100% (95% CI, 0.956-1), respectively. For the strategy test, the sensitivity, specificity, negative and positive predictive values were 100% (95% CI, 0.867-1), 92.1% (95% CI, 0.855-0.959), 76.2% (95% CI, 0.602-0.874), and 100% (95% CI, 0.960-1), respectively. In comparison with O-RADS ultrasound, the specificity and negative predictive value of the strategy test were slightly higher (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Good diagnostic performance of the O-RADS ultrasound in adnexal lesions can be achieved by experienced radiologists in clinical practice. A second subjective assessment of sonographic findings can be applied to O-RADS 4 and 5 lesions.

Prediction model of adnexal masses with complex ultrasound morphology

Background

Based on the ovarian-adnexal reporting and data system (O-RADS), we constructed a nomogram model to predict the malignancy potential of adnexal masses with sophisticated ultrasound morphology.

Methods

In a multicenter retrospective study, a total of 430 subjects with masses were collected in the adnexal region through an electronic medical record system at the Fourth Hospital of Harbin Medical University during the period of January 2019-April 2023. A total of 157 subjects were included in the exception validation cohort from Harbin Medical University Tumor Hospital. The pathological tumor findings were invoked as the gold standard to classify the subjects into benign and malignant groups. All patients were randomly allocated to the validation set and training set in a ratio of 7:3. A stepwise regression analysis was utilized for filtering variables. Logistic regression was conducted to construct a nomogram prediction model, which was further validated in the training set. The forest plot, C-index, calibration curve, and clinical decision curve were utilized to verify the model and assess its accuracy and validity, which were further compared with existing adnexal lesion models (O-RADS US) and assessments of different types of neoplasia in the adnexa (ADNEX).

Results

Four predictors as independent risk factors for malignancy were followed in the preparation of the diagnostic model: O-RADS classification, HE4 level, acoustic shadow, and protrusion blood flow score (all p < 0.05). The model showed moderate predictive power in the training set with a C-index of 0.959 (95%CI: 0.940-0.977), 0.929 (95%CI: 0.884-0.974) in the validation set, and 0.892 (95%CI: 0.843-0.940) in the external validation set. It showed that the predicted consequences of the nomogram agreed well with the actual results of the calibration curve, and the novel nomogram was clinically beneficial in decision curve analysis.

Conclusion

The risk of the nomogram of adnexal masses with complex ultrasound morphology contained four characteristics that showed a suitable predictive ability and provided better risk stratification. Its diagnostic performance significantly exceeded that of the ADNEX model and O-RADS US, and its screening performance was essentially equivalent to that of the ADNEX model and O-RADS US classification.

Comparative diagnostic accuracy of the IOTA SRR and LR2 scoring systems for discriminating between malignant and Benign Adnexal masses by junior physicians in Chinese patients: a retrospective observational study

BACKGROUND

The accuracy of ultrasound in distinguishing benign from malignant adnexal masses is highly correlated with the experience of ultrasound physicians. In China, most of ultrasound differentiation is done by junior physicians.

PURPOSE

To compare the diagnostic performance of the International Ovarian Tumour Analysis (IOTA) Simple Rules Risk (SRR) and IOTA Logistic Regression Model 2 (LR2) scoring systems in Chinese patients with adnexal masses.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis of ovarian cancer tumor patients who underwent surgery at a hospital in China from January 2016 to December 2021. Screening patients with at least one adnexal mass on inclusion and exclusion criteria. Two trained junior physicians evaluated each mass using the two scoring systems. A receiver operating characteristic curve was used to test the diagnostic performance of each system.

RESULTS

A total of 144 adnexal masses were retrospectively collected. Forty masses were histologically diagnosed as malignant. Compared with premenopausal women, postmenopausal women had a much higher rate of malignant masses. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV) of the SRR was 97.5% (95% CI: 86.8 -99.9%), 82.7% (95% CI: 74.0 -89.4%), 68.4% (95% CI: 58.7 -76.8%) and 98.9% (95% CI: 92.5 -99.8%). The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV of the LR2 were 90.0% (95% CI: 76.5 -97.2%), 89.4% (95% CI: 81.9 -94.6%), 76.6% (95% CI: 65.0 -85.2%), and 95.9% (95% CI: 90.2 -98.3%). There was good agreement between two scoring systems, with 84.03% total agreement and a kappa value of 0.783 (95% CI: 0.70-0.864). The areas under the curve for predicting malignant tumours using SRR and LR2 were similar for all patients (P > 0.05 ).

CONCLUSION

The two scoring systems can effectively distinguish benign from malignant adnexal masses. Both scoring systems have high diagnostic efficacy, and diagnostic efficacy is stable, which can provide an important reference for clinical decision making.

Simple rules, O-RADS, ADNEX and SRR model: Single oncologic center validation of diagnostic predictive models alone and combined (two-step strategy) to estimate the risk of malignancy in adnexal masses and ovarian tumors

OBJECTIVE

To compare performance of Assessment of Different NEoplasias in the adneXa (ADNEX model), Ovarian-Adnexal Reporting and Data System (O-RADS), Simple Rules Risk (SRR) assessment and the two-step strategy based on the application of Simple Rules (SR) followed by SRR and SR followed by ADNEX in the pre-operative discrimination between benign and malignant adnexal masses (AMs).

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective study from January-2018 to December-2021 in which consecutive patients with at AMs were recruited. Accuracy metrics included sensitivity (SE) and specificity (SP) with their 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for ADNEX, O-RADS and SRR. When SR was inconclusive a "two-step strategy" was adopted applying SR + ADNEX model and SR + SRR assessment.

RESULTS

A total of 514 women were included, 400 (77.8%) had a benign ovarian tumor and 114 (22.2%) had a malignant tumor. At a threshold malignancy risk of >10%, the SE and SP of ADNEX model, O-RADS and SRR were: 0.92 (95% CI, 0.86-0.96) and 0.88 (95% CI, 0.85-0.91); 0.93 (95% CI, 0.87-0.97) and 0.89 (95% CI, 0.96-0.92); 0.88 (95% CI, 0.80-0.93) and 0.84 (95% CI, 0.80-0.87), respectively. When we applied SR, 109 (21.2%) cases resulted inconclusive. The SE and SP of two-step strategy SR + SRR assessment and SR + ADNEX model were 0.88 (95% CI, 0.80-0.93) and 0.92 (95% CI, 0.89-0.94), SR + ADNEX model 0.90 (95% CI, 0.83-0.95) and 0.93 (95% CI, 0.90-0.96), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

O-RADS presented the highest SE, similar to ADNEX model and SR + ADNEX model. However, the SR + ADNEX model presented the higher performance accuracy with the higher SP and PPV. This two-step strategy, SR and ADNEX model applicated to inconclusive SR, is convenient for clinical evaluation.

Effect of differences in O-RADS lexicon interpretation between senior and junior sonologists on O-RADS classification and diagnostic performance

PURPOSE

To assess the consistency of Ovarian-Adnexal Reporting and Data System (O-RADS) lexicon interpretation between senior and junior sonologists and to investigate its impact on O-RADS classification and diagnostic performance.

METHODS

We prospectively studied 620 patients with adnexal lesions, all of whom underwent transvaginal or transrectal ultrasound performed by a senior sonologist (R1) who selected the O-RADS lexicon description and O-RADS category for the lesion after the examination. Meanwhile, the junior sonologist (R2) analyzed the images retained by R1 and divided the lesion in the same way. Pathological findings were used as a reference standard. kappa (к) statistics were used to assess the interobserver agreement.

RESULTS

Of the 620 adnexal lesions, 532 were benign and 88 were malignant. When using the O-RADS lexicon, R1 and R2 had almost perfect agreement regarding lesion category, external contour of solid lesions, presence of papillary inside cystic lesions, and fluid echogenicity (к: 0.81-1.00). Substantial agreement in solid components, acoustic shadow, vascularity and O-RADS categories (к: 0.61-0.80). Consistency in classifying classic benign lesions in the O-RADS category was only moderate (к = 0.535). No significant difference in diagnostic performance between them using O-RADS (P = 0.1211).

CONCLUSION

There was good agreement between senior and junior sonologists in the interpretation of the O-RADS lexicon and in the classification of O-RADS, except for a moderate agreement in the interpretation and classification of classic benign lesions. Differences in O-RADS category delineation between sonologists had no significant effect on the diagnostic performance of O-RADS.

Validation of the diagnostic efficacy of O-RADS in adnexal masses

The aim of this study was to validate the performance of the Ovarian-Adnexal Reporting and Data Systems (O-RADS) series models proposed by the American College of Radiology (ACR) in the preoperative diagnosis of adnexal masses (AMs). Two experienced sonologists examined 218 patients with AMs and gave the assessment results after the examination. Pathological findings were used as a reference standard. Of the 218 lesions, 166 were benign and 52 were malignant. Based on the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve, we defined a malignant lesion as O-RADS > 3 (i.e., lesions in O-RADS categories 4 and 5 were malignant). The area under the curve (AUC) of O-RADS (v2022) was 0.970 (95% CI 0.938-0.988), which wasn't statistically significantly different from the O-RADS (v1) combined Simple Rules Risk (SRR) assessment model with the largest AUC of 0.976 (95% CI 0.946-0.992) (p = 0.1534), but was significantly higher than the O-RADS (v1) (AUC = 0.959, p = 0.0133) and subjective assessment (AUC = 0.918, p = 0.0255). The O-RADS series models have good diagnostic performance for AMs. Where, O-RADS (v2022) has higher accuracy and specificity than O-RADS (v1). The accuracy and specificity of O-RADS (v1), however, can be further improved when combined with SRR assessment.

O-RADS US: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Category-specific Malignancy Rates

Background Ovarian-Adnexal Reporting and Data System (O-RADS) US provides a standardized method with which to stratify lesions into risk of malignancy categories, which is crucial for proper management. Purpose To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to estimate malignancy rates for each O-RADS US score and evaluate the diagnostic performance of combined O-RADS US scores 4 and 5 in the diagnosis of malignancy. Materials and Methods A systematic literature search from the inception of the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Web of Science databases through January 27, 2023, was performed for articles that reported using the O-RADS US stratification system and included malignancy rates per each O-RADS score. Bivariate random-effects models were used to determine the pooled malignancy rates for each O-RADS US score and to obtain summary estimates of the diagnostic performance of combined O-RADS US scores 4 and 5 in the diagnosis of malignant lesions. Results The final analysis included 18 studies consisting of 11 605 patients and 11 818 ovarian-adnexal lesions, with 2996 malignant (25.4%) and 8822 benign (74.6%) lesions. No malignant lesions were reported in O-RADS 1 category. The pooled percentages of malignancy were 0.6% (95% CI: 0.3, 1.0) for O-RADS 2, 3.9% (95% CI: 2.5, 5.4) for O-RADS 3, 43.5% (95% CI: 33.8, 53.2) for O-RADS 4, and 87.3% (95% CI: 83.0, 91.7) for O-RADS 5. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of combined O-RADS scores 4 and 5 in the diagnosis of malignant lesions were 95.6% (95% CI: 94.0, 97.2) and 76.6% (95% CI: 70.4, 82.7), respectively. Conclusion Each O-RADS US score provided the intended probability of malignant lesions as outlined by the O-RADS risk stratification system. When O-RADS US scores 4 and 5 were combined as a predictor for malignancy, O-RADS US showed a high sensitivity and moderate specificity. Clinical trial registration no. CRD42022352166 © RSNA, 2023 Supplemental material is available for this article.

Predictive accuracy and reproducibility of the O-RADS US scoring system among sonologists with different training levels

PURPOSE

To investigate the predictive performance and reproducibility of Ovarian-Adnexal Reporting and Data System (O-RADS) ultrasound (US) system in evaluating adnexal masses between sonologists with varying levels of expertise.

METHODS

This was a single-center retrospective study conducted between May 2019 and May 2020, which included 147 adnexal mases with pathological results. Four sonologists with varying experiences independently assigned an O-RADS US category to each adnexal mass twice. The intra- and inter-observer agreement was assessed using weighted kappa values. The area under the curve (AUC), sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value (PPV and NPV) were assessed for each sonologist.

RESULTS

Of the 147 adnexal mases, 115 (78.2%) lesions were benign and 32 (21.8%) lesions were malignant. Considering O-RADS > 3 as a predictor for adnexal malignancy, the predictive accuracies of the four sonologists were excellent, with AUCs ranging from 0.831 to 0.926. The predictive accuracies of O-RADS US by experienced sonologists were significantly higher compared to inexperienced sonologists (all P values < 0.005). The O-RADS US presented high sensitivity and NPV value for each sonologist. With regard to the reproducibility of O-RADS, the intra- and inter-observer agreement among experienced sonologists performed better than inexperienced sonologists.

CONCLUSION

O-RADS showed difference in the predictive accuracy and reproducibility in the evaluation of adnexal masses among sonologists with different levels of expertise. Training is required for inexperienced sonologists before the generalization of O-RADS classification system in clinical practice.

Adnexal Mass Imaging: Contemporary Guidelines for Clinical Practice

Several recent guidelines have been published to improve accuracy and consistency of adnexal mass imaging interpretation and to guide management. Guidance from the American College of Radiology (ACR) Appropriateness Criteria establishes preferred adnexal imaging modalities and follow-up. Moreover, the ACR Ovarian-Adnexal Reporting Data System establishes a comprehensive, unified set of evidence-based guidelines for classification of adnexal masses by both ultrasound and MR imaging, communicating risk of malignancy to further guide management.

Ultrasound Features and Ultrasound Scores in the Differentiation between Benign and Malignant Adnexal Masses

BACKGROUND

Several ultrasound (US) features help ultrasound experts in the classification of benign vs. malignant adnexal masses. US scores serve in this differentiation, but they all have misdiagnoses. The main objective of this study is to evaluate what ultrasound characteristics are associated with malignancy influencing ultrasound scores.

METHODS

This is a retrospective analysis of ultrasound features of adnexal lesions of women managed surgically. Ultrasound characteristics were analyzed, and masses were classified by subjective assessment of the ultrasonographer (SA) and other ultrasound scores (IOTA Simple Rules Risk Assessment SRRA, ADNEX model, and O-RADS).

RESULTS

Of a total of 187 adnexal masses studied, 134 were benign (71.7%) and 53 were malignant (28.3%). SA, IOTA SRRA, ADNEX model with or without CA125 and O-RADS had high levels of sensitivity (93.9%, 81.1%, 94.3%, 88.7%, 98.1%) but lower specificity (80.2%, 82.1%, 82.8%, 77.6%, 73.1%) with similar AUC (0.87, 0.87, 0.92, 0.90, 0.86). Ultrasound features significantly related with malignancy were the presence of irregular contour, absence of acoustic shadowing, vascularized solid areas, ≥1 papillae, vascularized septum, and moderate-severe ascites.

CONCLUSION

IOTA SRRA, ADNEX model, and O-RADS can help in the classification of benign and malignant masses. Certain ultrasound characteristics studied in ultrasound scores are associated with malignancy.

Diagnostic performance of IOTA SR and O-RADS combined with CA125, HE4, and risk of malignancy algorithm to distinguish benign and malignant adnexal masses

PURPOSE

To compare the diagnostic performance of International Ovarian Tumour Analysis Simple Rules (IOTA SR) and Ovarian-Adnexal Reporting and Data System (O-RADS), and to analyse whether combining IOTA SR and O-RADS with the biomarkers cancer antigen 125 (CA125), human epididymis protein 4 (HE4), and risk of malignancy algorithm (ROMA) further improves diagnostic performance in women with different menopause status.

METHODS

This study retrospectively included patients with ovarian adnexal masses confirmed by surgical pathology between September 2021 and February 2022. The area under the curve (AUC), sensitivity, and specificity were calculated to evaluate the diagnostic efficacy of IOTA SR, O-RADS, and their combination with CA125, HE4, and ROMA.

RESULTS

This study included 1,179 ovarian adnexal masses. In all women, the AUC of IOTA SR was comparable to O-RADS (0.879 vs. 0.889, P = 0.361), and O-RADS had a significantly higher sensitivity than IOTA SR (95.77 % vs. 87.32 %, P < 0.001). In premenopausal women, O-RADS had a significantly higher AUC than other diagnostic strategies (all P < 0.05), and the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were 93.33 %, 84.74 %, and 85.59 %, respectively. In postmenopausal women, IOTA SR + ROMA had a significantly higher AUC than other diagnostic strategies (all P < 0.05), and the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were 85.37 %, 93.88 %, and 90.00 %, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study supports the high diagnostic value of IOTA SR or O-RADS alone in all women, and O-RADS was more sensitive than IOTA SR. In premenopausal women, O-RADS had the highest diagnostic value. In postmenopausal women, IOTA SR outperformed O-RADS, and IOTA SR + ROMA had the highest diagnostic value.

Comparative Study of the Efficacy of the Ovarian-Adnexa Reporting and Data System Ultrasound Combined With Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound and the ADNEX MR Scoring System in the Diagnosis of Adnexal Masses

OBJECTIVE

The aims of this study were to develop the Ovarian-Adnexa Reporting and Data System (O-RADS) and O-RADS + contrast-enhanced ultrasound (O-RADS CEUS) scoring system to distinguish adnexal masses (AMs) and to compare the diagnostic efficacy of these systems with that of a magnetic resonance imaging scoring system (ADNEX MR).

METHODS

We retrospectively evaluated 278 ovarian masses from 240 patients between May 2017 and July 2022. Pathology and adequate follow-up were used as reference standards for comparing the validity of O-RADS, O-RADS CEUS and ADNEX MR scoring to diagnose AMs. Area under the curve (AUC), sensitivity and specificity were calculated. The inter-class correlation coefficient (ICC) was calculated to evaluate inter-reader agreement (IRA) between the two sonographers and two radiologists who analyzed the findings with the three modalities.

RESULTS

The AUCs of O-RADS, O-RADS CEUS and ADNEX MR scores were 0.928 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.895-0.956), 0.951(95% CI: 0.919-0.973) and 0.964 (95% CI: 0.935-0.983), respectively. Their sensitivities were 95.7%, 94.3 and 91.4%, and their specificities were 81.3%, 92.3% and 97.1%, respectively. The three modalities had accuracies of 84.9%, 92.8% and 95.7%, respectively. O-RADS had the highest sensitivity but significantly lower specificity (p < 0.001), whereas the ADNEX MR scoring had the highest specificity (p < 0.001) but lower sensitivity (p < 0.001). O-RADS CEUS had intermediate sensitivity and specificity (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

The addition of CEUS significantly improves the efficacy of O-RADS in diagnosing AMs. The diagnostic efficacy of the combination is comparable to that of the ADNEX MR scoring system.

Minimally Invasive Staging of Early-Stage Epithelial Ovarian Cancer versus Open Surgery in Terms of Feasibility and Safety: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Epithelial ovarian cancer is women's fourth most common oncological cause of death. One of the main prognostic factors in ovarian cancer is the tumor stage. For instance, surgical staging of the disease is focal when choosing the best therapeutic option for each case. Although open surgery is the prevalent approach for staging and treating ovarian cancer, the use of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) has found recent application in staging or restaging cases of early disease. Our work compares oncological outcomes after MIS staging for FIGO I epithelial ovarian cancer with the laparotomic approach. Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement recommendations, we systematically searched the Pub Med and Scopus databases in February 2023. No temporal nor geographical limitation was made. We included the articles containing data about Disease-Free Survival (DFS) and Overall Survival (OS), Recurrence Rates (RR), and Upstaging Rates (UpR). We used comparative studies for the meta-analysis. After the database search and article selection, 19 works matched the inclusion criteria for the systematic review. Eleven of these were comparative studies between MIS and Open Surgical Staging (OSS) approaches for ovarian cancer staging and were included in the meta-analysis. The meta-analysis did not show a statistically significant difference between the MIS and the OSS group concerning DFS, OS, and RR. Only Upstaging Rate ≥ FIGO Stage II was statistically significative higher in the OSS group. Likewise, MIS is confirmed to be an approach with a lower profile of surgical complications. In conclusion, our study did not show one approach to be safer than the other. However, the lack of dedicated studies limits the evidence of our study. For instance, we recommend adequately selecting the specimen, minimizing the risk of spillage, and optimizing surgical staging.

Comparison of contrast-enhanced ultrasound, IOTA simple rules and O-RADS for assessing the malignant risk of sonographically appearing solid ovarian masses

PURPOSE

To explore the diagnostic accuracy of ovarian solid tumors by 2D ultrasound and contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We retrospectively evaluated the CEUS characteristics of prospectively enrolled 16 benign and 19 malignant ovarian solid tumors. We performed International Ovarian Tumor Analysis (IOTA) simple rules and Ovarian-Adnexal Reporting and Data System (O-RADS) for all lesions, and evaluated their characteristics on CEUS. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV) and accuracy of IOTA simple rules, O-RADS and CEUS in the diagnosis of ovarian solid malignancies were calculated.

RESULTS

The combination of time to wash-in earlier than or equal to the myometrium, time to PI earlier than or equal to the myometrium and the intensity at peak were higher than or equal to myometrium with sensibility of 0.947, specificity of 0.938, and PPV of 0.947, NPV of 0.938 which were higher than IOTA simple rules and O-RADS. According to the definition of ovarian solid tumor, the diagnostic accuracy of O-RADS 3 and CEUS were both 100%, CEUS improved the accuracy of O-RADS 4 from 47.4% to 87.5%, the accuracy of solid smooth CS 4 in O-RADS 5 and CEUS were both 100%, CEUS improved the accuracy of solid irregular in O-RADS 5 from 70% to 87.5%.

CONCLUSION

For ovarian solid tumors that are difficult to distinguish between benign and malignant, the introduction of CEUS on the basis of 2D classification criteria can significantly improve the diagnostic accuracy.

Comparison of Ultrasound Scores in Differentiating between Benign and Malignant Adnexal Masses

Subjective ultrasound assessment by an expert examiner is meant to be the best option for the differentiation between benign and malignant adnexal masses. Different ultrasound scores can help in the classification, but whether one of them is significantly better than others is still a matter of debate. The main aim of this work is to compare the diagnostic performance of some of these scores in the evaluation of adnexal masses in the same set of patients. This is a retrospective study of a consecutive series of women diagnosed as having a persistent adnexal mass and managed surgically. Ultrasound characteristics were analyzed according to IOTA criteria. Masses were classified according to the subjective impression of the sonographer and other ultrasound scores (IOTA simple rules -SR-, IOTA simple rules risk assessment -SRRA-, O-RADS classification, and ADNEX model -with and without CA125 value-). A total of 122 women were included. Sixty-two women were postmenopausal (50.8%). Eighty-one women had a benign mass (66.4%), and 41 (33.6%) had a malignant tumor. The sensitivity of subjective assessment, IOTA SR, IOTA SRRA, and ADNEX model with or without CA125 and O-RADS was 87.8%, 66.7%, 78.1%, 95.1%, 87.8%, and 90.2%, respectively. The specificity for these approaches was 69.1%, 89.2%, 72.8%, 74.1%, 67.9%, and 60.5%, respectively. All methods with similar AUC (0.81, 0.78, 0.80, 0.88, 0.84, and 0.75, respectively). We concluded that IOTA SR, IOTA SRRA, and ADNEX models with or without CA125 and O-RADS can help in the differentiation of benign and malignant masses, and their performance is similar to the subjective assessment of an experienced sonographer.

Nomogram based on the O-RADS for predicting the malignancy risk of adnexal masses with complex ultrasound morphology

OBJECTIVE

The accurate preoperative differentiation of benign and malignant adnexal masses, especially those with complex ultrasound morphology, remains a great challenge for junior sonographers. The purpose of this study was to develop and validate a nomogram based on the Ovarian-Adnexal Reporting and Data System (O-RADS) for predicting the malignancy risk of adnexal masses with complex ultrasound morphology.

METHODS

A total of 243 patients with data on adnexal masses with complex ultrasound morphology from January 2019 to December 2020 were selected to establish the training cohort, while 106 patients with data from January 2021 to December 2021 served as the validation cohort. Univariate and multivariate analyses were used to determine independent risk factors for malignant tumors in the training cohort. Subsequently, a predictive nomogram model was developed and validated in the validation cohort. The calibration, discrimination, and clinical net benefit of the nomogram model were assessed separately by calibration curves, receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves, and decision curve analysis (DCA). Finally, we compared this model to the O-RADS.

RESULTS

The O-RADS category, an elevated CA125 level, acoustic shadowing and a papillary projection with color Doppler flow were the independent predictors and were incorporated into the nomogram model. The area under the ROC curve (AUC) of the nomogram model was 0.958 (95% CI, 0.932-0.984) in the training cohort. The specificity and sensitivity were 0.939 and 0.893, respectively. This nomogram also showed good discrimination in the validation cohort (AUC = 0.940, 95% CI, 0.899-0.981), with a sensitivity of 0.915 and specificity of 0.797. In addition, the nomogram model showed good calibration efficiency in both the training and validation cohorts. DCA indicated that the nomogram was clinically useful. Furthermore, the nomogram model had higher AUC and net benefit than the O-RADS.

CONCLUSION

The nomogram based on the O-RADS showed a good predictive ability for the malignancy risk of adnexal masses with complex ultrasound morphology and could provide help for junior sonographers.

Performance of IOTA Simple Rules Risks, ADNEX Model, Subjective Assessment Compared to CA125 and HE4 with ROMA Algorithm in Discriminating between Benign, Borderline and Stage I Malignant Adnexal Lesions

BACKGROUND

Borderline ovarian tumors (BOTs) and early clinical stage malignant adnexal masses can make sonographic diagnosis challenging, while the clinical utility of tumor markers, e.g., CA125 and HE4, or the ROMA algorithm, remains controversial in such cases.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the IOTA group Simple Rules Risk (SRR), the ADNEX model and the subjective assessment (SA) with serum CA125, HE4 and the ROMA algorithm in the preoperative discrimination between benign tumors, BOTs and stage I malignant ovarian lesions (MOLs).

METHODS

A multicenter retrospective study was conducted with lesions classified prospectively using subjective assessment and tumor markers with the ROMA. The SRR assessment and ADNEX risk estimation were applied retrospectively. The sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative likelihood ratios (LR+ and LR-) were calculated for all tests.

RESULTS

In total, 108 patients (the median age: 48 yrs, 44 postmenopausal) with 62 (79.6%) benign masses, 26 (24.1%) BOTs and 20 (18.5%) stage I MOLs were included. When comparing benign masses with combined BOTs and stage I MOLs, SA correctly identified 76% of benign masses, 69% of BOTs and 80% of stage I MOLs. Significant differences were found for the presence and size of the largest solid component (p = 0.0006), the number of papillary projections (p = 0.01), papillation contour (p = 0.008) and IOTA color score (p = 0.0009). The SRR and ADNEX models were characterized by the highest sensitivity (80% and 70%, respectively), whereas the highest specificity was found for SA (94%). The corresponding likelihood ratios were as follows: LR+ = 3.59 and LR- = 0.43 for the ADNEX; LR+ = 6.40 and LR- = 0.63 for SA and LR+ = 1.85 with LR- = 0.35 for the SRR. The sensitivity and specificity of the ROMA test were 50% and 85%, respectively, with LR+ = 3.44 and LR- = 0.58. Of all the tests, the ADNEX model had the highest diagnostic accuracy of 76%.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates the limited value of diagnostics based on CA125 and HE4 serum tumor markers and the ROMA algorithm as independent modalities for the detection of BOTs and early stage adnexal malignant tumors in women. SA and IOTA methods based on ultrasound examination may present superior value over tumor marker assessment.

O-RADS Classification for Ultrasound Assessment of Adnexal Masses: Agreement between IOTA Lexicon and ADNEX Model for Assigning Risk Group

BACKGROUND

The O-RADS system is a new proposal for establishing the risk of malignancy of adnexal masses using ultrasound. The objective of this study is to assess the agreement and diagnostic performance of O-RADS when using the IOTA lexicon or ADNEX model for assigning the O-RADS risk group.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data. All women diagnosed as having an adnexal mass underwent transvaginal/transabdominal ultrasound. Adnexal masses were classified according to the O-RADS classification, using the criterion of the IOTA lexicon and according to the risk of malignancy determined by the ADNEX model. The agreement between both methods for assigning the O-RADS group was estimated using weighted Kappa and the percentage of agreement. The sensitivity and specificity of both approaches were calculated.

RESULTS

454 adnexal masses in 412 women were evaluated during the study period. There were 64 malignant masses. The agreement between the two approaches was moderate (Kappa: 0.47), and the percentage of agreement was 46%. Most disagreements occurred for the groups O-RADS 2 and 3 and for groups O-RADS 3 and 4. The sensitivity and specificity for O-RADS using the IOTA lexicon and O-RADS using the ADNEX model were 92.2% and 86.1%, and 85.9% and 87.4%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The diagnostic performance of O-RADS classification using the IOTA lexicon as opposed to the IOTA ADNEX model is similar. However, O-RADS group assignment varies significantly, depending on the use of the IOTA lexicon or the risk estimation using the ADNEX model. This fact might be clinically relevant and deserves further research.

The Ovarian/Adnexal Reporting and Data System for Ultrasound: From Standardized Terminology to Optimal Risk Assessment and Management

The American College of Radiology (ACR) Ovarian-Adnexal Reporting and Data System (O-RADS) lexicon and risk assessment tool for ultrasound (US) provides a framework for characterization of ovarian and adnexal pathology with the ultimate goal of harmonizing reporting and patient management strategies. Since the first O-RADS US publication in 2018, multiple validation studies have shown O-RADS US to have excellent diagnostic accuracy, with the majority of these studies using O-RADS 4 as the optimal cut-off for detecting ovarian cancer. Most of the existing validation studies include a dedicated training phase and confirm that ORADS US categories and lexicon descriptors are associated with high level inter-read agreement, regardless of radiologist training level or practice experience. O-RADS US has a similar inter-reader agreement when compared to Gynecologic Imaging Reporting and Data System (GIRADS), Assessment of Different Neoplasias in the adnexa (ADNEX), and International Tumor Analysis Group (IOTA) simple rules. System descriptors have been shown to correlate with expected malignancy rates and the O-RADS US risk stratification system has been shown to perform in the expected range of malignancy risk per category. Further directions will focus on clarifying governing concepts and lexicon terminology as well as further refining risk stratification categories based on data from published validation studies.

Clinical value of O-RADS combined with serum CA125 and HE4 for the diagnosis of ovarian tumours

BACKGROUND

Ovarian tumors (OTs) are common gynecological tumors in women. It is very important to correctly distinguish benign and malignant OTs.

PURPOSE

To assess the diagnostic performance of the American College of Radiology (ACR) Ovarian-Adnexal Reporting and Data System (O-RADS) and evaluate the clinical value of O-RADS combined with serum carbohydrate antigen 125 (CA125) and human epididymis protein 4 (HE4) in differentiating benign from malignant OTs.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A retrospective analysis was performed on 431 cases including pathology and clinical data. The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was drawn, and sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and accuracy were calculated.

RESULTS

In premenopausal women, O-RADS and O-RADS combined with serum CA125 and HE4 showed sensitivity at 92.2% and 94.8%, specificity at 91.8% and 93.4%, and accuracy at 91.9% and 93.8%, respectively. In postmenopausal women, the sensitivity of O-RADS, O-RADS combined with serum CA125 and HE4 was 94.8% and 95.8%, specificity was 83.9% and 93.6%, and accuracy was 90.5% and 95.6%, respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of O-RADS combined with CA125 and HE4 in premenopausal and postmenopausal women were higher than that of O-RADS (P<0.05).

CONCLUSION

O-RADS has high diagnostic performance in OTs. When O-RADS is combined with CA125 and HE4 in the diagnosis of OTs, the sensitivity and specificity are improved, which is helpful to improve the diagnostic efficiency of OTs and has high clinical application value.

Does Combing O-RADS US and CA-125 Improve Diagnostic Accuracy in Assessing Adnexal Malignancy Risk in Women With Different Menopausal Status?

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the individual and combined performances of the Ovarian-adnexal Reporting and Data System Ultrasound (O-RADS US) and serum cancer antigen 125 (CA-125) in assessing adnexal malignancy risk in women with different menopausal status.

METHODS

This retrospective study included patients with adnexal masses scheduled for surgery based on their preoperative US and histopathology results between January 2018 and January 2020. O-RADS were used to assess adnexal malignancy by two experienced radiologists. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUCs) were used to compare the accuracy of O-RADS and a combination of O-RADS and CA-125. The weighted κ index was used to evaluate the inter-reviewer agreement.

RESULTS

Overall, the data of 443 lesions in 443 patients were included, involving 312 benign lesions and 131 malignant lesions. There were 361 premenopausal and 82 postmenopausal patients. The inter-reviewer agreement for the two radiologists was very good (weighted κ: 0.833). Combing O-RADS US and CA-125 significantly increased diagnostic accuracy for classifying malignant from benign adnexal masses, compared with O-RADS US alone (AUC: 0.97 vs 0.95, P < .001 for premenopausal population and AUC: 0.93 vs 0.85, P < .001 for postmenopausal population). The AUCs of O-RADS with and without CA-125 ranged from 0.50 to 0.99 for different adnexal pathology subtypes (ie, benign, borderline, Stage I-IV, and metastatic tumors).

CONCLUSION

The addition of CA-125 helps improve discrimination of O-RADS US between benign and malignant adnexal masses, especially in postmenopausal women.

Diagnostic Performance of Ultrasound-Based International Ovarian Tumor Analysis Simple Rules and Assessment of Different NEoplasias in the adneXa Model for Predicting Malignancy in Women with Ovarian Tumors: A Prospective Cohort Study

Background

Comparative performance of various ultrasound models in diagnosing ovarian lesions has not been adequately studied. This study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic performance of the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis (IOTA) simple rules and Assessment of Different NEoplasias in the adneXa (ADNEX) models in women with ovarian lesions.

Methods

Women 18-80 years, with an ovarian lesion planned for surgery were recruited in this prospective observational cohort study. Preoperative risk stratification was done by both IOTA simple rules and the ADNEX model. The diagnostic performance of both models was estimated using histopathology as the gold standard.

Results

A total of 90 women were recruited into the study. The IOTA simple rules were applicable to 77 (85.5%) participants and the ADNEX model on 100% women. Both the simple rules and the ADNEX model had good diagnostic performance. The sensitivity and specificity of the IOTA simple rules for predicting malignancy was 66.6% and 91%, while that of the ADNEXA model was 80% and 94%, respectively. The maximum diagnostic accuracy for prediction of both benign and malignant tumors was obtained when cancer antigen-125 (CA-125) was combined with the IOTA ADNEX model (91.0%), but for Stage I malignancy, the maximum diagnostic accuracy was for ADNEX without CA-125 (91.0%).

Conclusion

Both the IOTA models have a good diagnostic accuracy and are of paramount importance in differentiating benign from malignant tumors and predicting the stage of the malignant disease.

Evaluation of IOTA-ADNEX Model and Simple Rules for Identifying Adnexal Masses by Operators with Varying Levels of Expertise: A Single-Center Diagnostic Accuracy Study

Objectives The discrimination of ovarian lesions presents a significant problem in everyday clinical practice with ultrasonography appearing to be the most effective diagnostic technique. The aim of our study was to externally evaluate the performance of different diagnostic models when applied by examiners with various levels of experience. Methods This was a diagnostic accuracy study including women who were admitted for adnexal masses, between July 2018 and April 2021, to a Greek tertiary oncology center. Preoperatively sonographic data were evaluated by an expert gynecologist, a 6 th and a 1 st year gynecology resident, who applied the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis (IOTA) Simple Rules (SR) and Assessment of Different NEoplasias in the adneXa (ADNEX) model to discriminate between benign and malignant ovarian tumors. The explant pathology report was used as the reference diagnosis. Kappa statistics were used for the investigation of the level of agreement between the examined systems and the raters. Results We included 66 women, 39 with benign and 27 with malignant ovarian tumors. ADNEX (with and without "CA-125") had high sensitivity (96-100%) when applied by all raters but a rather low specificity (36%) when applied by the 1st year resident. SR could not be applied in 6% to 17% of the cases. It had slightly lower sensitivity, higher specificity, and higher overall accuracy, especially when applied by the 1st year resident (61% vs. 92%), compared to ADNEX. Conclusion Both ADNEX and SR can be utilized for screening in non-oncology centers since they offer high sensitivity even when used by less experienced examiners. In the hands of inexperienced examiners, SR appears to be the best model for assessing ovarian lesions.

Surgical outcomes of adnexal masses classified by IOTA ultrasound simple rules

IOTA (International Ovarian Tumor Analysis) Simple Rules classifies adnexal masses as benign, malignant, or indeterminate based on sonographic features. We seek to determine if IOTA inappropriately directed women to surgery, or more aggressive surgery, than their final diagnosis warranted. This is a retrospective study of sonographically detected adnexal masses with known clinical outcomes from two institutions (n = 528). Surgically managed patients (n = 172) were categorized based on pathology and compared using Chi-square and t-test for categorical and continuous variables respectively. A logistic regression was used to predict characteristics that predicted surgery or imaging follow up of indeterminate masses. Of the 528 masses imaged, 29% (n = 155) underwent surgery for benign pathology. Only 1.9% (n = 10) underwent surgery after classification as malignant by IOTA for what was ultimately a benign mass. Surgical complications occurred in 10 cases (5.8%), all benign. Fifteen (3.2%) patients went into surgically induced menopause for benign masses, one of which was inaccurately classified by IOTA as malignant. Of the 41 IOTA indeterminate masses, the presence of soft tissue nodules on ultrasound was the only statistically significant predictor of the patient being triaged directly to surgery (OR 1.79, p = 0.04). Our findings support that the IOTA ultrasound classification system can provide clinical guidance without incurring unnecessary surgeries or surgical complications.

Performance of the IOTA ADNEX model combined with HE4 for identifying early-stage ovarian cancer

Objective

This work was designed to investigate the performance of the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis (IOTA) ADNEX (Assessment of Different NEoplasias in the adneXa) model combined with human epithelial protein 4 (HE4) for early ovarian cancer (OC) detection.

Methods

A total of 376 women who were hospitalized and operated on in Women and Children’s Hospital of Chongqing Medical University were selected. Ultrasonographic images, cancer antigen-125 (CA 125) levels, and HE4 levels were obtained. All cases were analyzed and the histopathological diagnosis serves as the reference standard. Based on the IOTA ADNEX model post-processing software, the risk prediction value was calculated. We analyzed receiver operating characteristic curves to determine whether the IOTA ADNEX model alone or combined with HE4 provided better diagnostic accuracy.

Results

The area under the curve (AUC) of the ADNEX model alone or combined with HE4 in predicting benign and malignant ovarian tumors was 0.914 (95% CI, 0.881–0.941) and 0.916 (95% CI, 0.883–0.942), respectively. With the cutoff risk of 10%, the ADNEX model had a sensitivity of 0.93 (95% CI, 0.87–0.97) and a specificity of 0.73 (95% CI, 0.67–0.78), while combined with HE4, it had a sensitivity of 0.90 (95% CI, 0.84–0.95) and a specificity of 0.81 (95% CI, 0.76–0.86). The IOTA ADNEX model combined with HE4 was better at improving the accuracy of the differential diagnosis between different OCs than the IOTA ADNEX model alone. A significant difference was found in separating borderline masses from Stage II–IV OC (p = 0.0257).

Conclusions

A combination of the IOTA ADNEX model and HE4 can improve the specificity of diagnosis of ovarian benign and malignant tumors and increase the sensitivity and effectiveness of the differential diagnosis of Stage II–IV OC and borderline tumors.

Interreader Agreement and Intermodality Concordance of O-RADS US and MRI for Assessing Large, Complex Ovarian-Adnexal Cysts

Purpose To assess interreader agreement of the Ovarian-Adnexal Reporting and Data System (O-RADS) and intermodality concordance between US and MRI for characterizing complex adnexal cysts measuring 5 cm or larger. Materials and Methods This retrospective study included 58 "complex cysts" measuring at least 5 cm in size observed at both US and MRI in 54 women (median age, 37 years ± 12 [SD]; seven postmenopausal women) between July 2017 and June 2020, identified from an electronic US database. A separate set of two blinded radiologists independently reviewed the US or MR images to assign the O-RADS category, and an adjudicator resolved discrepancies (a total of six readers). Lesion outcome (49 benign, eight malignant, one lost to follow-up) was recorded. Interreader agreement of O-RADS US and O-RADS MRI and concordance between US and MRI were analyzed. Results Interreader agreement was fair for US (κ = 0.31), moderate for MRI (κ = 0.43), and moderate between US and MRI (κ = 0.58). A significant positive correlation was found between O-RADS US and MRI (τ = 0.72, P < .001). The O-RADS 4 threshold yielded the highest accuracy for both US and MRI (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve = 0.92 and 0.995, respectively). Considering O-RADS US 4 or 5 as potentially malignant and 1-3 as benign, eight lesions that were assessed as potentially malignant at US were correctly downgraded to benign by using findings at MRI. Using findings at MRI, one malignant lesion that was assessed as benign at US was upgraded to potentially malignant. Conclusion O-RADS US and MRI had excellent performance and positive correlation, but significant interobserver variability remains. Keywords: Ovary, MR Imaging, Ultrasonography © RSNA, 2022 See also the commentary by Baumgarten in this issue.

Ovarian Adnexal Reporting Data System (O-RADS) for Classifying Adnexal Masses: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Simple Summary

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis aiming to assess the diagnostic performance of the Ovarian Adnexal Report Data System (O-RADS) using transvaginal ultrasound for classifying adnexal masses. Data from 11 studies comprising 4634 masses showed that the pooled estimated sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio, and diagnostic odds ratio of O-RADS system for classifying adnexal masses were 97% (95% confidence interval (CI) = 94%–98%), 77% (95% CI = 68%–84%), 4.2 (95% CI= 2.9–6.0), 0.04 (95% CI = 0.03–0.07), and 96 (95% CI = 50–185), respectively. We concluded that the O-RADS system has good sensitivity and moderate specificity for classifying adnexal masses.

Abstract

In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we aimed to assess the pooled diagnostic performance of the so-called Ovarian Adnexal Report Data System (O-RADS) for classifying adnexal masses using transvaginal ultrasound, a classification system that was introduced in 2020. We performed a search for studies reporting the use of the O-RADS system for classifying adnexal masses from January 2020 to April 2022 in several databases (Medline (PubMed), Google Scholar, Scopus, Cochrane, and Web of Science). We selected prospective and retrospective cohort studies using the O-RADS system for classifying adnexal masses with histologic diagnosis or conservative management demonstrating spontaneous resolution or persistence in cases of benign appearing masses after follow-up scan as the reference standard. We excluded studies not related to the topic under review, studies not addressing O-RADS classification, studies addressing MRI O-RADS classification, letters to the editor, commentaries, narrative reviews, consensus documents, and studies where data were not available for constructing a 2 × 2 table. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative likelihood ratios, and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) were calculated. The quality of the studies was evaluated using QUADAS-2. A total of 502 citations were identified. Ultimately, 11 studies comprising 4634 masses were included. The mean prevalence of ovarian malignancy was 32%. The risk of bias was high in eight studies for the “patient selection” domain. The risk of bias was low for the “index test” and “reference test” domains for all studies. Overall, the pooled estimated sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio, and DOR of the O-RADS system for classifying adnexal masses were 97% (95% confidence interval (CI) = 94%–98%), 77% (95% CI = 68%–84%), 4.2 (95% CI = 2.9–6.0), 0.04 (95% CI = 0.03–0.07), and 96 (95% CI = 50–185), respectively. Heterogeneity was moderate for sensitivity and high for specificity. In conclusion, the O-RADS system has good sensitivity and moderate specificity for classifying adnexal masses.

A comparison of the diagnostic performance of the O-RADS, RMI4, IOTA LR2, and IOTA SR systems by senior and junior doctors

Purpose

This study compared the diagnostic performance of the Ovarian-Adnexal Reporting and Data System (O-RADS), the Risk of Malignancy Index 4 (RMI4), the International Ovarian of Tumor Analysis Logistic Regression Model 2 (IOTA LR2), and the IOTA Simple Rules (IOTA SR) in predicting the malignancy of adnexal masses (AMs).

Methods

This retrospective study included 575 women with AMs between 2017 and 2020. All clinical messages, ultrasound images, and pathological findings were collected. Two senior doctors (group I) and two junior doctors (group II) used the four systems to classify AMs. The postoperative pathological diagnosis was used as the gold standard to evaluate the diagnostic efficiency. A receiver operating characteristic curve was used to test the diagnostic performance. The interrater agreement between the two groups was tested using kappa values.

Results

Of all 592 AMs, 447 (75.5%) were benign, 123 (20.8%) were malignant, and 22 (3.7%) were borderline. The intergroup consistency test yielded kappa values of 0.71, 0.92, 0.68, and 0.77 for the O-RADS, RMI4, IOTA LR2, and IOTA SR, respectively. To predict malignant lesions, the areas under the curve of the O-RADS, RMI4, IOTA LR2, and IOTA SR systems were 0.90, 0.89, 0.90, and 0.86 for group I and 0.89, 0.87, 0.88, and 0.84 for group II, respectively. The O-RADS had the highest sensitivity (91.0% in group I and 84.8% in group II).

Conclusion

The four diagnostic systems could compensate for junior doctors’ inexperience in predicting malignant adnexal lesions. The O-RADS performed best and showed the highest sensitivity.