Evaluating the risk of malignancy in adnexal masses: validation of O-RADS and comparison with ADNEX model, SA, and RMI

被引:3
作者
Wang, Rongling [1 ]
Yang, Zongli [1 ,2 ]
机构
[1] Qingdao Univ, Dept Abdominal Ultrasound, Affiliated Hosp, Qingdao, Shandong, Peoples R China
[2] Qingdao Univ, Dept Abdominal Ultrasound, Affiliated Hosp, 16 Jiangsu Rd, Qingdao, Shandong, Peoples R China
关键词
adnexal masses; O-RADS; ADNEX model; Subjective assessment; RMI; EXTERNAL VALIDATION; SUBJECTIVE ASSESSMENT; OVARIAN-CANCER; ULTRASOUND; DIAGNOSIS;
D O I
10.5603/GP.a2023.0019
中图分类号
R71 [妇产科学];
学科分类号
100211 ;
摘要
Objectives:To evaluate the diagnostic value of Ovarian-adnexal Reporting and Data System (O-RADS), and to compare it with Assessment of Different NEoplasias in the adnexa (ADNEX) model, Subjective Assessment (SA), and Risk of Malig-nancy Index (RMI) in differentiating benign and malignant adnexal masses (AMs).Material and methods: Ultrasound characteristics of 445 patients included in the study were retrospectively analyzed and evaluated using diagnostic models. The diagnostic performances of ultrasound diagnostic models were measured by assessing, receiver-operating characteristic curves, sensitivities, positive predictive values, positive likelihood ratios, specificities, negative predictive values, and negative likelihood ratios. Kappa values were used to evaluate inter-reviewer agreement (IRA).Results: Of the 445 AMs, 265 were benign and 180 were malignant. The area under the curve (AUC) of O-RADS (0.941), ADNEX model (0.925), and SA (0.931) were higher than RMI (0.815) (all p < 0.05). The sensitivity of O-RADS (93.3%), ADNEX model (94.4%), and SA (96.1%) were higher than RMI (70.6%) (p > 0.05), and there was no statistical significance among them (p > 0.05). The specificity of O-RADS, ADNEX model, SA, and RMI was 90.2%, 90.6%, 90.2%, and 92.5%, respectively, with no statistical significance (p > 0.05). All four ultrasound diagnostic methods showed better IRA.Conclusions: O-RADS, ADNEX model and SA have better diagnostic value in differentiating benign and malignant AMs than RMI.
引用
收藏
页码:799 / 806
页数:8
相关论文
共 26 条
  • [1] American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Committee on Practice BulletinsGynecology, 2016, Obstet Gynecol, V128, pe210
  • [2] 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
  • [3] Clear cell carcinoma of the ovary: A report from the first Ovarian Clear Cell Symposium, June 24th, 2010
    Anglesio, Michael S.
    Carey, Mark S.
    Koebel, Martin
    MacKay, Helen
    Huntsman, David G.
    [J]. GYNECOLOGIC ONCOLOGY, 2011, 121 (02) : 407 - 415
  • [4] Comparison of O-RADS, GI-RADS, and IOTA simple rules regarding malignancy rate, validity, and reliability for diagnosis of adnexal masses
    Basha, Mohammad Abd Alkhalik
    Metwally, Maha Ibrahime
    Gamil, Shrif A.
    Khater, Hamada M.
    Aly, Sameh Abdelaziz
    El Sammak, Ahmed A.
    Zaitoun, Mohamed M. A.
    Khattab, Enass M.
    Azmy, Taghreed M.
    Alayouty, Nader Ali
    Mohey, Nesreen
    Almassry, Hosam Nabil
    Yousef, Hala Y.
    Ibrahim, Safaa A.
    Mohamed, Ekramy A.
    Mohamed, Abd El Motaleb
    Afifi, Amira Hamed Mohamed
    Harb, Ola A.
    Algazzar, Hesham Youssef
    [J]. EUROPEAN RADIOLOGY, 2021, 31 (02) : 674 - 684
  • [5] 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
  • [6] Risk of Ovarian Malignancy Algorithm versus Risk Malignancy Index-I for Preoperative Assessment of Adnexal Masses: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
    Chacon, Enrique
    Dasi, Joana
    Caballero, Carolina
    Alcazar, Juan Luis
    [J]. GYNECOLOGIC AND OBSTETRIC INVESTIGATION, 2019, 84 (06) : 591 - 598
  • [7] Comparison of the predictive performance of risk of malignancy indexes 1-4, HE4 and risk of malignancy algorithm in the triage of adnexal masses
    Hada, Abha
    Han, Li-ping
    Chen, Yanyan
    Hu, Qing-hong
    Yuan, Yidan
    Liu, Liya
    [J]. JOURNAL OF OVARIAN RESEARCH, 2020, 13 (01)
  • [8] Estimating the risk of malignancy of adnexal masses: validation of the ADNEX model in the hands of nonexpert ultrasonographers in a gynaecological oncology centre in China
    He, Ping
    Wang, Jing-jing
    Duan, Wei
    Song, Chao
    Yang, Yu
    Wu, Qing-qing
    [J]. JOURNAL OF OVARIAN RESEARCH, 2021, 14 (01)
  • [9] 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
    Hiett, A. K.
    Sonek, J. D.
    Guy, M.
    Reid, T. J.
    [J]. ULTRASOUND IN OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY, 2022, 59 (05) : 668 - 676
  • [10] A RISK OF MALIGNANCY INDEX INCORPORATING CA-125, ULTRASOUND AND MENOPAUSAL STATUS FOR THE ACCURATE PREOPERATIVE DIAGNOSIS OF OVARIAN-CANCER
    JACOBS, I
    ORAM, D
    FAIRBANKS, J
    TURNER, J
    FROST, C
    GRUDZINSKAS, JG
    [J]. BRITISH JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNAECOLOGY, 1990, 97 (10): : 922 - 929