Comparison of <scp>O‐RADS</scp>, <scp>GI‐RADS,</scp> and <scp>ADNEX</scp> for Diagnosis of Adnexal Masses: An External Validation Study Conducted by Junior Sonologists
Hong‐wei Lai, Guorong Lyu, Zhuo Kang, Liya Li, Ying Zhang, Yijun Huang
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To externally validate the Ovarian-adnexal Reporting and Data System (O-RADS) and evaluate its performance in differentiating benign from malignant adnexal masses (AMs) compared with the Gynecologic Imaging Reporting and Data System (GI-RADS) and Assessment of Different NEoplasias in the adneXa (ADNEX). METHODS: A retrospective analysis was performed on 734 cases from the Second Affiliated Hospital of Fujian Medical University. All patients underwent transvaginal or transabdominal ultrasound examination. Pathological diagnoses were obtained for all the included AMs. O-RADS, GI-RADS, and ADNEX were used to evaluate AMs by two sonologists, and the diagnostic efficacy of the three systems was analyzed and compared using pathology as the gold standard. We used the kappa index to evaluate the inter-reviewer agreement (IRA). RESULTS: A total of 734 AMs, including 564 benign masses, 69 borderline masses, and 101 malignant masses were included in this study. O-RADS (0.88) and GI-RADS (0.90) had lower sensitivity than ADNEX (0.95) (P < .05), and the PPV of O-RADS (0.98) was higher than that of ADNEX (0.96) (P < .05). These three systems showed good IRA. CONCLUSION: O-RADS, GI-RADS, and ADNEX showed little difference in diagnostic performance among resident sonologists. These three systems have their own characteristics and can be selected according to the type of center, access to patients' clinical data, or personal comfort.