Validity and Reproducibility of the ADNEX MR Scoring System in the Diagnosis of Sonographically Indeterminate Adnexal Masses.
ADNEX MR Scoring system
MRI
reproducibility
sonographically indeterminate adnexal masses
validity
Journal
Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI
ISSN: 1522-2586
Titre abrégé: J Magn Reson Imaging
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 9105850
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 2021
01 2021
Historique:
received:
30
04
2020
revised:
25
06
2020
accepted:
26
06
2020
pubmed:
28
7
2020
medline:
15
5
2021
entrez:
28
7
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The diagnosis of sonographically indeterminate adnexal masses (AM) signifies a major challenge in clinical practice. Early detection and characterization have increased the need for accurate imaging evaluation before treatment. To assess the validity and reproducibility of the ADNEX MR Scoring system in the diagnosis of sonographically indeterminate AM. A prospective multicenter study. In all, 531 women (mean age, 44 ± 11.2 years; range, 21-79 years) with 572 sonographically indeterminate AM. 1.5T/precontrast T All MRI examinations were evaluated by three radiologists, and the AM were categorized into five scores based on the ADNEX MR Scoring system. Score 1: no AM; 2: benign AM; 3: probably benign AM; 4: indeterminate AM; 5: probably malignant AM. Histopathology and imaging follow-up were used as the standard references for evaluating the validity of the ADNEX MR Scoring system for detecting ovarian malignancy. Four-fold table test, kappa statistics (κ), and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. In all, 136 (23.8%) AM were malignant, and 436 (76.2%) were benign. Of the 350 AM classified as score 2, one (0.3%) was malignant; of the 62 AM classified as score 3, six (9.7%) were malignant; of the 73 AM classified as score 4, 43 (58.9%) were malignant; and of the 87 AM categorized as score 5, 86 (98.9%) were malignant. The best cutoff value for predicting malignant AM was score >3 with sensitivity and specificity of 92.9% and 94.9%, respectively. The interreader agreement of the ADNEX MR Scoring was very good (κ = 0.861). The current study supports the high validity and reproducibility of the ADNEX MR Scoring system for the diagnosis of sonographically indeterminate AM. 1 TECHNICAL EFFICACY STAGE: 2.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
The diagnosis of sonographically indeterminate adnexal masses (AM) signifies a major challenge in clinical practice. Early detection and characterization have increased the need for accurate imaging evaluation before treatment.
PURPOSE
To assess the validity and reproducibility of the ADNEX MR Scoring system in the diagnosis of sonographically indeterminate AM.
STUDY TYPE
A prospective multicenter study.
POPULATION
In all, 531 women (mean age, 44 ± 11.2 years; range, 21-79 years) with 572 sonographically indeterminate AM.
FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE
1.5T/precontrast T
ASSESSMENT
All MRI examinations were evaluated by three radiologists, and the AM were categorized into five scores based on the ADNEX MR Scoring system. Score 1: no AM; 2: benign AM; 3: probably benign AM; 4: indeterminate AM; 5: probably malignant AM. Histopathology and imaging follow-up were used as the standard references for evaluating the validity of the ADNEX MR Scoring system for detecting ovarian malignancy.
STATISTICAL TESTS
Four-fold table test, kappa statistics (κ), and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve.
RESULTS
In all, 136 (23.8%) AM were malignant, and 436 (76.2%) were benign. Of the 350 AM classified as score 2, one (0.3%) was malignant; of the 62 AM classified as score 3, six (9.7%) were malignant; of the 73 AM classified as score 4, 43 (58.9%) were malignant; and of the 87 AM categorized as score 5, 86 (98.9%) were malignant. The best cutoff value for predicting malignant AM was score >3 with sensitivity and specificity of 92.9% and 94.9%, respectively. The interreader agreement of the ADNEX MR Scoring was very good (κ = 0.861).
DATA CONCLUSION
The current study supports the high validity and reproducibility of the ADNEX MR Scoring system for the diagnosis of sonographically indeterminate AM.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE
1 TECHNICAL EFFICACY STAGE: 2.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
292-304Informations de copyright
© 2020 International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine.
Références
Levine D, Brown DL, Andreotti RF, et al. Management of asymptomatic ovarian and other adnexal cysts imaged at US: Society of Radiologists in ultrasound consensus conference statement. Radiology 2010;256:943-954.
Sadowski EA, Paroder V, Patel-Lippmann K, et al. Indeterminate adnexal cysts at US: Prevalence and characteristics of ovarian cancer. Radiology 2018;287:1041-1049.
Spencer JA, Forstner R, Cunha TM, Kinkel K, ESUR Female Imaging Sub-Committee. ESUR guidelines for MR imaging of the sonographically indeterminate adnexal mass: An algorithmic approach. Eur Radiol 2010;20:25-35.
Nikolic O, Basta Nikolic M, Spasic A, Otero-Garcia MM, Stojanovic S. Systematic radiological approach to utero-ovarian pathologies. Br J Radiol 2019;92:20180439.
Nikolic O, Ostojic J, Basta Nikolic M, Spasic A, Donat D, Stojanovic S. MR diagnostics of adnexal masses. Vienna, Austria: ECR; 2017.
Yamashita Y, Torashima M, Hatanaka Y, et al. Adnexal masses: Accuracy of characterization with transvaginal US and precontrast and postcontrast MR imaging. Radiology 1995;194:557-565.
Hricak H, Chen M, Coakley FV, et al. Complex adnexal masses: Detection and characterization with MRI multivariate analysis. Radiology 2000;214:39e46.
Thomassin-Naggara I, Daraï E, Cuenod CA, Rouzier R, Callard P, Bazot M. Dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging: A useful tool for characterizing ovarian epithelial tumours. J Magn Reson Imaging 2008;28:111-120.
Thomassin-Naggara I, Daraï E, Cuenod CA, et al. Contribution of diffusion-weighted MRI for predicting benignity of complex adnexal masses. Eur Radiol 2009;19:1544-1552.
Geomini P, Kruitwagen R, Bremer GL, Cnossen J, Mol BW. The accuracy of risk scores in predicting ovarian malignancy: A systematic review. Obstet Gynecol 2009;113:384-394.
Hricak H, Chen M, Coakley FV, et al. Complex adnexal masses: Detection and characterization with MR imaging: Multivariate analysis. Radiology 2000;214:39-46.
Kaijser J, Sayasneh A, Van Hoorde K, et al. Presurgical diagnosis of adnexal tumours using mathematical models and scoring systems: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod Update 2014;20:449-462.
Timmerman D, Ameye L, Fischerova D, Epstein E. Simple ultrasound rules to distinguish between benign and malignant adnexal masses before surgery: Prospective validation by IOTA group. BMJ 2010;341:c6839.
Thomassin-Naggara I, Aubert E, Rockall A, et al. Adnexal masses: Development and preliminary validation of an MRI scoring system. Radiology 2013;267:432-443.
Ruiz M, Labauge P, Louboutin A, Limot O, Fauconnier A, Huchon C. External validation of the MR imaging scoring system for the management of adnexal masses. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2016;205:115-119.
Sasaguri K, Yamaguchi K, Nakazono T, et al. External validation of ADNEX MR Scoring system: A single-centre retrospective study. Clin Radiol 2019;74:131-139.
Pereira PN, Sarian LO, Yoshida A, et al. Accuracy of the ADNEX MR Scoring system based on a simplified MRI protocol for the assessment of adnexal masses. Diagn Interv Radiol 2018;24:63.
Thomassin-Naggara I, Poncelet E, Jalaguier-Coudray A, et al. Ovarian-adnexal reporting data system magnetic resonance imaging (O-RADS MRI) score for risk stratification of Sonographically indeterminate adnexal masses. JAMA Netw Open 2020;3:e1919896.
Sohaib SA, Sahdev A, Van Trappen P, Jacobs IJ, Reznek RH. Characterization of adnexal mass lesions on MR imaging. Am J Roentgenol 2003;180:1297-1304.
Thomassin-Naggara I, Toussaint I, Per-rot N, et al. Characterization of complex adnexal masses: Value of adding perfusion- and diffusion-weighted MR imaging to conventional MR imaging. Radiology 2011;258:793-803.
Timmerman D, Valentin L, Bourne TH, et al. Terms, definitions and measurements to describe the sonographic features of adnexal tumors: A consensus opinion from the international ovarian tumor analysis (IOTA) group. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2000;16:500-505.
Thomassin-Naggara I, Bazot M, Daraï E, Callard P, Thomassin J, Cuenod CA. Epithelial ovarian tumors: Value of dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging and correlation with tumor angiogenesis. Radiology 2008;248:148-159.
Siegelman ES, Outwater EK. Tissue characterization in the female pelvis by means of MR imaging. Radiology 1999;212:5-18.
Heintz AP, Odicino F, Maisonneuve P, et al. Carcinoma of the ovary. Int J Gynecol Obstet 2003;83:135-166.
Thomassin-Naggara I, Balvay D, Aubert E, et al. Quantitative dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging analysis of complex adnexal masses: A preliminary study. Eur Radiol 2012;22:738-745.
Dilks P, Narayanan P, Reznek R, Sahdev A, Rockall A. Can quantitative dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI independently characterize an ovarian mass? Eur Radiol 2010;20:2176-2183.
Bernardin L, Dilks P, Liyanage S, Miquel ME, Sahdev A, Rockall A. Effectiveness of semi-quantitative multiphase dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI as a predictor of malignancy in complex adnexal masses: Radiological and pathological correlation. Eur Radiol 2012;22:880-890.
Rosenkrantz AB, Ginocchio LA, Cornfeld D, et al. Interobserver reproducibility of the PI-RADS version 2 lexicon: A multicenter study of six experienced prostate radiologists. Radiology 2016;280:793-804.
Flood TF, Pokharel SS, Patel NU, Clark TJ. Accuracy and interobserver variability in reporting of PI-RADS version 2. J Am Coll Radiol 2017;14:1202-1205.
Redondo A, Comas M, Macià F, et al. Inter- and intraradiologist variability in the BI-RADS assessment and breast density categories for screening mammograms. Br J Radiol 2012;85:1465-1470.