Diagnostic value of the ovarian adnexal reporting and data system ultrasound in ovarian masses: a 2-center study

被引:0
作者
Teng, Fei [1 ,2 ]
Xie, Honglei [3 ]
Wei, Hong [1 ]
Che, Dehong [4 ]
Wang, Hongbo [1 ]
Wu, Chengwei [1 ]
He, Xin [2 ]
Dong, Xiaoqiu [2 ]
机构
[1] Harbin Med Univ, Affiliated Hosp 2, Inpatient Ultrasound Dept, Harbin 150081, Peoples R China
[2] Harbin Med Univ, Affiliated Hosp 4, Ultrasound Dept, Surgeons Hall,37 Yiyuan Rd, Harbin 150001, Heilongjiang, Peoples R China
[3] Harbin Med Univ, Ctr Endem Dis Control, Chinese Ctr Dis Control & Prevent, Harbin 150081, Peoples R China
[4] Harbin Med Univ, Affiliated Hosp 2, Dept Obstet & Gynecol, Harbin 150081, Peoples R China
关键词
O-RADS; ultrasound; sub-classification system; ovarian masses; diagnostic efficacy; O-RADS; FEATURES;
D O I
10.1093/bjr/tqae247
中图分类号
R8 [特种医学]; R445 [影像诊断学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100207 ; 1009 ;
摘要
Objective This study aimed to assess the diagnostic efficacy of the ovarian adnexal reporting and data system (O-RADS) and ultrasound (US) and its sub-classification system for distinguishing ovarian masses. Methods O-RADS US was used for the retrospective analysis of 606 ovarian masses of Chinese from 2 medical centres by 2 gynaecologic sonographers with varying experience. The O-RADS 4 categories masses were further sub-classified into O-RADS 4a and O-RADS 4b through 3 different approaches (O-RADS A1/A2/A3). Results The AUC of O-RADS US for differentiating benign from malignant ovarian masses was 0.927 (95% CI, 0.903-0.946, P < .001). The optimal cut-off value for predicting malignancy was >O-RADS 3, with sensitivity and specificity of 98.60% and 68.90%, respectively. The diagnostic efficacy of the 3 sub-classification systems surpassed that of O-RADS US (P < .05). Specifically, A2 approach (within O-RADS 4 lesions, unilocular and multilocular cysts with solid components were sub-classified as O-RADS 4b, whereas the remaining O-RADS 4 lesions were sub-classified as O-RADS 4a) resulted in an AUC of 0.942 (95% CI, 0.921-0.960, P < .001). The best cut-off value predicting malignancy was >O-RADS 4a, exhibiting relatively high specificity (82.51%) and maintaining a high sensitivity (93.01%). Conclusion The diagnostic efficacy of O-RADS US for identifying ovarian tumours is good, but specificity is slightly lower. This study enhanced diagnostic specificity after subclassifying O-RADS 4 lesions, especially A2 approach. It holds significant clinical value for Chinese women and merits further clinical promotion and application. Advances in knowledge The sub-classification of O-RADS US allows better identifying ovarian tumours, facilitating informed preoperative clinical management and diagnosis.
引用
收藏
页码:448 / 457
页数:10
相关论文
共 25 条
  • [1] O-RADS US Risk Stratification and Management System: A Consensus Guideline from the ACR Ovarian-Adnexal Reporting and Data System Committee
    Andreotti, Rochelle F.
    Timmerman, Dirk
    Strachowski, Lori M.
    Froyman, Wouter
    Benacerraf, Beryl R.
    Bennett, Genevieve L.
    Bourne, Tom
    Brown, Douglas L.
    Coleman, Beverly G.
    Frates, Mary C.
    Goldstein, Steven R.
    Hamper, Ulrike H.
    Horrow, Mindy M.
    Hernanz-Schulman, Marta
    Reinhold, Caroline
    Rose, Stephen L.
    Whitcomb, Brad P.
    Wolfman, Wendy L.
    Glanc, Phyllis
    [J]. RADIOLOGY, 2020, 294 (01) : 168 - 185
  • [2] Ovarian-Adnexal Reporting Lexicon for Ultrasound: A White Paper of the ACR Ovarian-Adnexal Reporting and Data System Committee
    Andreotti, Rochelle F.
    Timmerman, Dirk
    Benacerraf, Beryl R.
    Bennett, Genevieve L.
    Bourne, Tom
    Brown, Douglas L.
    Coleman, Beverly G.
    Frates, Mary C.
    Froyman, Wouter
    Goldstein, Steven R.
    Hamper, Ulrike M.
    Horrow, Mindy M.
    Hernanz-Schulman, Marta
    Reinhold, Caroline
    Strachowski, Lori M.
    Glanc, Phyllis
    [J]. JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF RADIOLOGY, 2018, 15 (10) : 1415 - 1429
  • [3] Validation of American College of Radiology Ovarian-Adnexal Reporting and Data System Ultrasound (O-RADS US): Analysis on 1054 adnexal masses
    Cao, Lan
    Wei, Mingjie
    Liu, Ying
    Fu, Juan
    Zhang, Honghuan
    Huang, Jing
    Pei, Xiaoqing
    Zhou, Jianhua
    [J]. GYNECOLOGIC ONCOLOGY, 2021, 162 (01) : 107 - 112
  • [4] Pathology and classification of ovarian tumors
    Chen, VW
    Ruiz, B
    Killeen, JL
    Coté, TR
    Wu, XC
    Correa, CN
    [J]. CANCER, 2003, 97 (10) : 2631 - +
  • [5] Mature Cystic Teratoma: An Integrated Review
    Cong, Luping
    Wang, Sijia
    Yeung, Suet Ying
    Lee, Jacqueline Ho Sze
    Chung, Jacqueline Pui Wah
    Chan, David Yiu Leung
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MOLECULAR SCIENCES, 2023, 24 (07)
  • [6] Doubeni CA, 2016, AM FAM PHYSICIAN, V93, P937
  • [7] Expert Panel on Womens Imaging:, 2019, J Am Coll Radiol, V16, pS77, DOI 10.1016/j.jacr.2019.02.011
  • [8] Imaging in gynecological disease (8): ultrasound characteristics of recurrent borderline ovarian tumors
    Franchi, D.
    Boveri, S.
    Fruscio, R.
    Fischerova, D.
    Guerriero, S.
    Moruzzi, M. C.
    Colombo, N.
    Timmerman, D.
    Valentin, L.
    Testa, A. C.
    [J]. ULTRASOUND IN OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY, 2013, 41 (04) : 452 - 458
  • [9] A comparison of the diagnostic performance of the O-RADS, RMI4, IOTA LR2, and IOTA SR systems by senior and junior doctors
    Guo, Yuyang
    Zhao, Baihua
    Zhou, Shan
    Wen, Lieming
    Liu, Jieyu
    Fu, Yaqian
    Xu, Fang
    Liu, Minghui
    [J]. ULTRASONOGRAPHY, 2022, 41 (03) : 511 - 518
  • [10] External Validation of O-RADS US Risk Stratification and Management System
    Hack, Kalesha
    Gandhi, Niket
    Bouchard-Fortier, Genevieve
    Chawla, Tanya P.
    Ferguson, Sarah E.
    Li, Siying
    Kahn, Daniel
    Tyrrell, Pascal N.
    Glanc, Phyllis
    [J]. RADIOLOGY, 2022, 304 (01) : 114 - 120