Ovarian-Adnexal Reporting Data System Magnetic Resonance Imaging (O-RADS MRI) Score for Risk Stratification of Sonographically Indeterminate Adnexal Masses

Isabelle Thomassin-Naggara, Edouard Poncelet, Aurelie Jalaguier-Coudray, Adalgisa Guerra, Laure S Fournier, Sanja Stojanovic, Ingrid Millet, Nishat Bharwani, Valerie Juhan, Teresa M Cunha, Gabriele Masselli, Corinne Balleyguier, Caroline Malhaire, Nicolas F Perrot, Elizabeth A Sadowski, Marc Bazot, Patrice Taourel, Raphaël Porcher, Emile Darai, Caroline Reinhold, Andrea G Rockall, Isabelle Thomassin-Naggara, Edouard Poncelet, Aurelie Jalaguier-Coudray, Adalgisa Guerra, Laure S Fournier, Sanja Stojanovic, Ingrid Millet, Nishat Bharwani, Valerie Juhan, Teresa M Cunha, Gabriele Masselli, Corinne Balleyguier, Caroline Malhaire, Nicolas F Perrot, Elizabeth A Sadowski, Marc Bazot, Patrice Taourel, Raphaël Porcher, Emile Darai, Caroline Reinhold, Andrea G Rockall

Abstract

Importance: Approximately one-quarter of adnexal masses detected at ultrasonography are indeterminate for benignity or malignancy, posing a substantial clinical dilemma.

Objective: To validate the accuracy of a 5-point Ovarian-Adnexal Reporting Data System Magnetic Resonance Imaging (O-RADS MRI) score for risk stratification of adnexal masses.

Design, setting, and participants: This multicenter cohort study was conducted between March 1, 2013, and March 31, 2016. Among patients undergoing expectant management, 2-year follow-up data were completed by March 31, 2018. A routine pelvic MRI was performed among consecutive patients referred to characterize a sonographically indeterminate adnexal mass according to routine diagnostic practice at 15 referral centers. The MRI score was prospectively applied by 2 onsite readers and by 1 reader masked to clinical and ultrasonographic data. Data analysis was conducted between April and November 2018.

Main outcomes and measures: The primary end point was the joint analysis of true-negative and false-negative rates according to the MRI score compared with the reference standard (ie, histology or 2-year follow-up).

Results: A total of 1340 women (mean [range] age, 49 [18-96] years) were enrolled. Of 1194 evaluable women, 1130 (94.6%) had a pelvic mass on MRI with a reference standard (surgery, 768 [67.9%]; 2-year follow-up, 362 [32.1%]). A total of 203 patients (18.0%) had at least 1 malignant adnexal or nonadnexal pelvic mass. No invasive cancer was assigned a score of 2. Positive likelihood ratios were 0.01 for score 2, 0.27 for score 3, 4.42 for score 4, and 38.81 for score 5. Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.961 (95% CI, 0.948-0.971) among experienced readers, with a sensitivity of 0.93 (95% CI, 0.89-0.96; 189 of 203 patients) and a specificity of 0.91 (95% CI, 0.89-0.93; 848 of 927 patients). There was good interrater agreement among both experienced and junior readers (κ = 0.784; 95% CI, 0.743-0824). Of 580 of 1130 women (51.3%) with a mass on MRI and no specific gynecological symptoms, 362 (62.4%) underwent surgery. Of them, 244 (67.4%) had benign lesions and a score of 3 or less. The MRI score correctly reclassified the mass origin as nonadnexal with a sensitivity of 0.99 (95% CI, 0.98-0.99; 1360 of 1372 patients) and a specificity of 0.78 (95% CI, 0.71-0.85; 102 of 130 patients).

Conclusions and relevance: In this study, the O-RADS MRI score was accurate when stratifying the risk of malignancy in adnexal masses.

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr Thomassin-Naggara reported receiving personal fees and nonfinancial support from General Electric and personal fees from Siemens, Hologic, Canon, and Guerbet outside the submitted work. Dr Fournier reported receiving grants from Invectys and speaking fees from General Electric, Novartis, Sanofi, and Janssen Pharmaceuticals outside the submitted work. Dr Balleyguier reported receiving personal fees and nonfinancial support from General Electric and personal fees from Siemens, Samsung Group, and the Bracco Group outside the submitted work. Dr Rockall reported receiving an educational speaker fee from Guerbet. No other disclosures were reported.

Figures

Figure 1.. Study Population Flow Diagram
Figure 1.. Study Population Flow Diagram
MR indicates magnetic resonance; MRI, magnetic resonance imaging.

References

    1. Curtin JP. Management of the adnexal mass. Gynecol Oncol. 1994;55(3, pt 2):-. doi:10.1006/gyno.1994.1340
    1. Woo YL, Kyrgiou M, Bryant A, Everett T, Dickinson HO. Centralisation of services for gynaecological cancers: a Cochrane systematic review. Gynecol Oncol. 2012;126(2):286-290. doi:10.1016/j.ygyno.2012.04.012
    1. Meys EMJ, Kaijser J, Kruitwagen RFPM, et al. . Subjective assessment versus ultrasound models to diagnose ovarian cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Cancer. 2016;58:17-29. doi:10.1016/j.ejca.2016.01.007
    1. Froyman W, Landolfo C, De Cock B, et al. . Risk of complications in patients with conservatively managed ovarian tumours (IOTA5): a 2-year interim analysis of a multicentre, prospective, cohort study. Lancet Oncol. 2019;20(3):448-458. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(18)30837-4
    1. Alcázar JL, Pascual MA, Graupera B, et al. . External validation of IOTA simple descriptors and simple rules for classifying adnexal masses. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2016;48(3):397-402. doi:10.1002/uog.15854
    1. Menon U, Gentry-Maharaj A, Hallett R, et al. . Sensitivity and specificity of multimodal and ultrasound screening for ovarian cancer, and stage distribution of detected cancers: results of the prevalence screen of the UK Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening (UKCTOCS). Lancet Oncol. 2009;10(4):327-340. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(09)70026-9
    1. Buys SS, Partridge E, Black A, et al. ; PLCO Project Team . Effect of screening on ovarian cancer mortality: the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2011;305(22):2295-2303. doi:10.1001/jama.2011.766
    1. Jacobs IJ, Menon U, Ryan A, et al. . Ovarian cancer screening and mortality in the UK Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening (UKCTOCS): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2016;387(10022):945-956. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(15)01224-6
    1. Borley J, Wilhelm-Benartzi C, Yazbek J, et al. . Radiological predictors of cytoreductive outcomes in patients with advanced ovarian cancer. BJOG. 2015;122(6):843-849. doi:10.1111/1471-0528.12992
    1. Timmerman D, Van Calster B, Testa A, et al. . Predicting the risk of malignancy in adnexal masses based on the Simple Rules from the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis group. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2016;214(4):424-437. doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2016.01.007
    1. Anton C, Carvalho FM, Oliveira EI, Maciel GAR, Baracat EC, Carvalho JP. A comparison of CA125, HE4, risk ovarian malignancy algorithm (ROMA), and risk malignancy index (RMI) for the classification of ovarian masses. Clinics (Sao Paulo). 2012;67(5):437-441. doi:10.6061/clinics/2012(05)06
    1. Moszynski R, Szubert S, Szpurek D, Michalak S, Krygowska J, Sajdak S. Usefulness of the HE4 biomarker as a second-line test in the assessment of suspicious ovarian tumors. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2013;288(6):1377-1383. doi:10.1007/s00404-013-2901-1
    1. Kaijser J, Vandecaveye V, Deroose CM, et al. . Imaging techniques for the pre-surgical diagnosis of adnexal tumours. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2014;28(5):683-695. doi:10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2014.03.013
    1. Thomassin-Naggara I, Aubert E, Rockall A, et al. . Adnexal masses: development and preliminary validation of an MR imaging scoring system. Radiology. 2013;267(2):432-443. doi:10.1148/radiol.13121161
    1. Hsieh FY, Bloch DA, Larsen MD. A simple method of sample size calculation for linear and logistic regression. Stat Med. 1998;17(14):1623-1634. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1097-0258(19980730)17:14<1623::AID-SIM871>;2-S
    1. DeLong ER, DeLong DM, Clarke-Pearson DL. Comparing the areas under two or more correlated receiver operating characteristic curves: a nonparametric approach. Biometrics. 1988;44(3):837-845. doi:10.2307/2531595
    1. Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977;33(1):159-174. doi:10.2307/2529310
    1. Marill KA, Chang Y, Wong KF, Friedman AB. Estimating negative likelihood ratio confidence when test sensitivity is 100%: a bootstrapping approach. Stat Methods Med Res. 2017;26(4):1936-1948. doi:10.1177/0962280215592907
    1. Anthoulakis C, Nikoloudis N. Pelvic MRI as the “gold standard” in the subsequent evaluation of ultrasound-indeterminate adnexal lesions: a systematic review. Gynecol Oncol. 2014;132(3):661-668. doi:10.1016/j.ygyno.2013.10.022
    1. Yazbek J, Raju SK, Ben-Nagi J, Holland TK, Hillaby K, Jurkovic D. Effect of quality of gynaecological ultrasonography on management of patients with suspected ovarian cancer: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol. 2008;9(2):124-131. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(08)70005-6
    1. Van Holsbeke C, Van Belle V, Leone FPG, et al. . Prospective external validation of the ‘ovarian crescent sign’ as a single ultrasound parameter to distinguish between benign and malignant adnexal pathology. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2010;36(1):81-87. doi:10.1002/uog.7625
    1. Faschingbauer F, Benz M, Häberle L, et al. . Subjective assessment of ovarian masses using pattern recognition: the impact of experience on diagnostic performance and interobserver variability. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2012;285(6):1663-1669. doi:10.1007/s00404-012-2229-2
    1. 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. doi:10.1016/j.ejogrb.2016.07.493
    1. Pereira PN, Sarian LO, Yoshida A, et al. . Accuracy of the AdnexMR scoring system based on a simplified MRI protocol for the assessment of adnexal masses. Diagn Interv Radiol. 2018;24(2):63-71. doi:10.5152/dir.2018.17378
    1. Sasaguri K, Yamaguchi K, Nakazono T, et al. . External validation of AdnexMR Scoring system: a single-centre retrospective study. Clin Radiol. 2019;74(2):131-139. doi:10.1016/j.crad.2018.10.014
    1. Van Calster B, Timmerman D, Valentin L, et al. . Triaging women with ovarian masses for surgery: observational diagnostic study to compare RCOG guidelines with an International Ovarian Tumour Analysis (IOTA) group protocol. BJOG. 2012;119(6):662-671. doi:10.1111/j.1471-0528.2012.03297.x
    1. Meys EMJ, Jeelof LS, Achten NMJ, et al. . Estimating risk of malignancy in adnexal masses: external validation of the ADNEX model and comparison with other frequently used ultrasound methods. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2017;49(6):784-792. doi:10.1002/uog.17225
    1. Sadowski EA, Paroder V, Patel-Lippmann K, et al. . Indeterminate adnexal cysts at US: prevalence and characteristics of ovarian cancer. Radiology. 2018;287(3):1041-1049. doi:10.1148/radiol.2018172271
    1. Basha MAA, Refaat R, Ibrahim SA, et al. . Gynecology Imaging Reporting and Data System (GI-RADS): diagnostic performance and inter-reviewer agreement. Eur Radiol. 2019;29(11):5981-5990. doi:10.1007/s00330-019-06181-0
    1. Levine D, Brown DL, Andreotti RF, et al. ; Society of Radiologists in Ultrasound . Management of asymptomatic ovarian and other adnexal cysts imaged at US Society of Radiologists in Ultrasound consensus conference statement. Ultrasound Q. 2010;26(3):121-131. doi:10.1097/RUQ.0b013e3181f09099
    1. Yazbek J, Ameye L, Testa AC, et al. . Confidence of expert ultrasound operators in making a diagnosis of adnexal tumor: effect on diagnostic accuracy and interobserver agreement. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2010;35(1):89-93. doi:10.1002/uog.7335
    1. Kaijser J, Van Gorp T, Van Hoorde K, et al. . A comparison between an ultrasound based prediction model (LR2) and the risk of ovarian malignancy algorithm (ROMA) to assess the risk of malignancy in women with an adnexal mass. Gynecol Oncol. 2013;129(2):377-383. doi:10.1016/j.ygyno.2013.01.018
    1. 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(3):449-462. doi:10.1093/humupd/dmt059
    1. Nunes N, Ambler G, Foo X, Widschwendter M, Jurkovic D. Prospective evaluation of IOTA logistic regression models LR1 and LR2 in comparison with subjective pattern recognition for diagnosis of ovarian cancer in an outpatient setting. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2018;51(6):829-835. doi:10.1002/uog.18918
    1. Morice P, Uzan C, Fauvet R, Gouy S, Duvillard P, Darai E. Borderline ovarian tumour: pathological diagnostic dilemma and risk factors for invasive or lethal recurrence. Lancet Oncol. 2012;13(3):e103-e115. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(11)70288-1
    1. . ADNEXMR scoring system: impact of an MR scoring system of therapeutic strategy of pelvic adnexal masses (ASCORDIA). . Accessed December 9, 2019.
    1. ISRCTN Registry. MR in ovarian cancer. . Accessed December 9, 2019.
    1. 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 tumors. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2008;28(1):111-120. doi:10.1002/jmri.21377

Source: PubMed

3
Abonner