43
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

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

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Key Points

          Question

          Is the Ovarian-Adnexal Reporting Data System Magnetic Resonance Imaging (O-RADS MRI) score accurate for stratifying the risk of malignancy of sonographically indeterminate adnexal masses?

          Findings

          In this multicenter cohort study that included 1340 women, the O-RADS MRI score had a sensitivity of 0.93 and a specificity of 0.91.

          Meaning

          Applying this score in clinical practice may allow a tailored, patient-centered approach for adnexal masses that are sonographically indeterminate, preventing unnecessary surgery, less extensive surgery, or fertility preservation when appropriate, while ensuring preoperative detection of lesions with a high likelihood of malignancy.

          Abstract

          This cohort study validates the accuracy of the 5-point Ovarian-Adnexal Reporting Data System Magnetic Resonance Imaging (O-RADS MRI) score for risk stratification of adnexal masses.

          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.

          Related collections

          Most cited references27

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Predicting the risk of malignancy in adnexal masses based on the Simple Rules from the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis group.

          Accurate methods to preoperatively characterize adnexal tumors are pivotal for optimal patient management. A recent metaanalysis concluded that the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis algorithms such as the Simple Rules are the best approaches to preoperatively classify adnexal masses as benign or malignant.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Subjective assessment versus ultrasound models to diagnose ovarian cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

            Many national guidelines concerning the management of ovarian cancer currently advocate the risk of malignancy index (RMI) to characterise ovarian pathology. However, other methods, such as subjective assessment, International Ovarian Tumour Analysis (IOTA) simple ultrasound-based rules (simple rules) and IOTA logistic regression model 2 (LR2) seem to be superior to the RMI. Our objective was to compare the diagnostic accuracy of subjective assessment, simple rules, LR2 and RMI for differentiating benign from malignant adnexal masses prior to surgery.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Borderline ovarian tumour: pathological diagnostic dilemma and risk factors for invasive or lethal recurrence.

              By comparison with ovarian carcinomas, borderline ovarian tumours are characterised clinically by superior overall survival, even in women with peritoneal spread. In this Review, we aimed to clarify the histological and clinical factors potentially defining a high-risk group in whom disease is likely to evolve to invasive disease. Invasive peritoneal implants (in serous borderline ovarian tumours) and residual disease after surgery were the two factors clearly identified. Other factors are controversial owing to increased risk of invasive recurrence: micropapillary patterns in serous borderline ovarian tumour, intraepithelial carcinoma in mucinous lesions, stromal microinvasion in serous lesions, and use of cystectomy in mucinous borderline ovarian tumours. The pathologist has a pivotal role in assessment of the borderline nature of ovarian tumours and in identification of high-risk criteria, most of which are histological. But, reproducibility of the histological interpretation of some of these potential criteria--eg, classification of peritoneal implants (particularly in desmoplastic subtype), stromal microinvasion, micropapillary patterns, and intraepithelial carcinoma in mucinous borderline ovarian tumours--remains unclear, and should be investigated. Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                JAMA Netw Open
                JAMA Netw Open
                JAMA Netw Open
                JAMA Network Open
                American Medical Association
                2574-3805
                24 January 2020
                January 2020
                24 January 2020
                : 3
                : 1
                : e1919896
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Service de Radiologie, Hôpital Tenon, Assistance Publique–Hôpitaux de Paris, Sorbonne Université, Paris, France
                [2 ]Institute for Computing and Data Sciences, Sorbonne Université, Paris, France
                [3 ]American College of Radiology, Ovarian-Adnexal Reporting and Data System Magnetic Resonance Imaging Committee
                [4 ]Service d’Imagerie de la Femme, Centre Hospitalier de Valenciennes, Valenciennes, France
                [5 ]Institut Paoli Calmettes, Marseille, France
                [6 ]Hospital da Luz, Lisboa, Portugal
                [7 ]Department of Radiology, Hôpital Européen Georges Pompidou, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Université Paris-Descartes, Paris, France
                [8 ]Centre for Radiology, Clinical Centre of Vojvodina, Medical Faculty, University of Novi Sad, Novi Sad, Serbia and Montenegro
                [9 ]Lapeyronie Hospital, University of Montpellier, Montpellier, France
                [10 ]Department of Radiology, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, United Kingdom
                [11 ]Hôpital de la Timone, Marseille, France
                [12 ]Department of Radiology, Instituto Português de Oncologia de Lisboa Francisco Gentil, Lisboa, Portugal
                [13 ]Department of Radiology, Umberto I Hospital, Sapienza University Roma, Rome, Italy
                [14 ]Institut Gustave Roussy, Paris, France
                [15 ]Institut Curie, Paris, France
                [16 ]Centre Pyramides, Paris, France
                [17 ]University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin
                [18 ]Centre of Research in Epidemiology and Statistics Sorbonne Paris Cité, Institute national de la santé et de la recherche médicale, Joint Research Unit 1153, Paris, France
                [19 ]Service de Gynecologie et Obstetrique et Médecine de la Reproduction, Hôpital Tenon, Assistance Publique–Hôpitaux de Paris, Hôpitaux Univesitaires Est Parisien, Paris, France
                [20 ]Faculté de Médecine Pierre et Marie Curie, Sorbonne Université, Paris, France
                [21 ]Department of Medical Imaging, McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
                [22 ]Division of Cancer and Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, United Kingdom
                Author notes
                Article Information
                Accepted for Publication: December 1, 2019.
                Published: January 24, 2020. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.19896
                Open Access: This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY License. © 2020 Thomassin-Naggara I et al. JAMA Network Open.
                Corresponding Author: Isabelle Thomassin-Naggara, MD, PhD, Service de Radiologie, Hôpital Tenon, Assistance Publique–Hôpitaux de Paris, Hôpitaux Univesitaires Est Parisien, 58 avenue Gambetta, 75020 Paris, France ( isabelle.thomassin@ 123456aphp.fr ).
                Author Contributions: Drs Thomassin-Naggara and Porcher had full access to all of the data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis. Drs Reinhold and Rockall contributed equally.
                Concept and design: Thomassin-Naggara, Guerra, Porcher, Reinhold, Rockall.
                Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: All authors.
                Drafting of the manuscript: Thomassin-Naggara, Guerra, Stojanovic, Sadowski, Darai, Reinhold, Rockall.
                Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Thomassin-Naggara, Poncelet, Jalaguier-Coudray, Guerra, Fournier, Stojanovic, Millet, Bharwani, Juhan, Cunha, Masselli, Balleyguier, Malhaire, Perrot, Bazot, Taourel, Porcher, Reinhold, Rockall.
                Statistical analysis: Thomassin-Naggara, Porcher, Darai.
                Obtained funding: Thomassin-Naggara.
                Administrative, technical, or material support: Thomassin-Naggara, Poncelet, Jalaguier-Coudray, Fournier, Stojanovic, Bharwani, Masselli, Malhaire, Perrot, Bazot, Taourel, Reinhold, Rockall.
                Supervision: Thomassin-Naggara, Stojanovic, Masselli, Balleyguier, Sadowski, Bazot, Taourel, Reinhold, Rockall.
                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.
                Funding/Support: This work was funded by a grant from the Société d’Imagerie de la Femme. Support is acknowledged from the National Institute of Health Research Imperial Biomedical Research Centre and the Cancer Research UK Imperial Centre.
                Role of the Funder/Sponsor: The funders had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.
                Additional Contributions: The European Adnex MR Score Group (EURAD) Collaborators include Asma Bekhouche, MD, Antoine Brault, MD, Louise Gervais, MD, and Edith Kermarrec, MD (Service de Radiologie, Hôpital Tenon, Assistance Publique–Hôpitaux de Paris, Hôpitaux Univesitaires Est Parisien, Paris, France), Alexandre Bellucci, MD (Department of Radiology, Hôpital Européen Georges Pompidou, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Université Paris-Descartes, Paris, France), Julien Brochet, MD (Service d’Imagerie de la Femme, Centre Hospitalier de Valenciennes, Valenciennes, France), Claudia Campos, MD (Hôpital de la Timone, Marseille, France), Danielle Donat, MD, and Marijana Basta Nikolić, MD (Centre for Radiology, Clinical Centre of Vojvodina, Medical Faculty, University of Novi Sad, Novi Sad, Serbia and Montenegro), Federica Laghi, MD (Department of Radiology, Instituto Português de Oncologia de Lisboa Francisco Gentil, Lisboa, Portugal), Emma Pages-Bouic, MD, and Cecile Verheyden, MD (Lapeyronie Hospital, University of Montpellier, Montpellier, France), Miriam Salib, FRCR, and Elena Serena, MD (Service de Gynecologie et Obstetrique et Médecine de la Reproduction, Hôpital Tenon), and Pascal Siles, MD (Department of Radiology, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, United Kingdom). The EURAD Collaborators were not compensated for their time. The Steering Committee of Ovarian-Adnexal Reporting Data System Magnetic Resonance Imaging (O-RADS MRI) includes Caroline Reinhold, MD, MSC (Department of Medical Imaging, McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, Quebec, Canada), Andrea Rockall, MRCP, FRCR (Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London and Department of Radiology, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, United Kingdom), Isabelle Thomassin-Naggara, MD, PhD (Service de Radiologie, Hôpital Tenon, Assistance Publique–Hôpitaux de Paris, Hôpitaux Univesitaires Est Parisien, Paris, France), Evan Siegelman, MD (Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia), Elizabeth Sadowski, MD (University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin), Kate Maturen, MD, MS (University of Michigan Hospitals, Ann Arbor), Alberto Vargas, MD (Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York), and Rosemary Fostner, MD (University of Salzburg, Salzburg, Austria). The members of Steering Committee of O-RADS MRI were not compensated for their time. We acknowledge the support of the study sponsor Société d’Imagerie de la Femme, support for the EURAD study from European Society for Urogenital Radiology Female Pelvic Imaging working group, and support for the O-RADS steering committee from the American College of Radiology and the European Society of Radiology. The EURAD collaborators contributed to additional secondary image reads. The O-RADS MRI collaborators participated in collaborative work in American College of Radiology O-RADS MRI committee for discussions concerning the transition of the AdnexMR score to become the O-RADS MRI score to align the position of the score in the imaging community.
                Article
                zoi190746
                10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.19896
                6991280
                31977064
                d6ac0547-7648-44cc-bd3c-763533121ab0
                Copyright 2020 Thomassin-Naggara I et al. JAMA Network Open.

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY License.

                History
                : 5 September 2019
                : 1 December 2019
                Funding
                Funded by: Société d’Imagerie de la Femme
                Funded by: National Institute of Health Research Imperial Biomedical Research Centre
                Funded by: Cancer Research UK Imperial Centre
                Categories
                Research
                Original Investigation
                Online Only
                Imaging

                Comments

                Comment on this article