Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2023 Sep 21;13(1):15667.
doi: 10.1038/s41598-023-42836-1.

Validation of the diagnostic efficacy of O-RADS in adnexal masses

Na Su #  1 , Ya Yang #  1 , Zhenzhen Liu  1 , Luying Gao  1 , Qing Dai  1 , Jianchu Li  1 , Hongyan Wang #  2 , Yuxin Jiang #  3
Affiliations

Validation of the diagnostic efficacy of O-RADS in adnexal masses

Na Su et al. Sci Rep. .

Abstract

The aim of this study was to validate the performance of the Ovarian-Adnexal Reporting and Data Systems (O-RADS) series models proposed by the American College of Radiology (ACR) in the preoperative diagnosis of adnexal masses (AMs). Two experienced sonologists examined 218 patients with AMs and gave the assessment results after the examination. Pathological findings were used as a reference standard. Of the 218 lesions, 166 were benign and 52 were malignant. Based on the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve, we defined a malignant lesion as O-RADS > 3 (i.e., lesions in O-RADS categories 4 and 5 were malignant). The area under the curve (AUC) of O-RADS (v2022) was 0.970 (95% CI 0.938-0.988), which wasn't statistically significantly different from the O-RADS (v1) combined Simple Rules Risk (SRR) assessment model with the largest AUC of 0.976 (95% CI 0.946-0.992) (p = 0.1534), but was significantly higher than the O-RADS (v1) (AUC = 0.959, p = 0.0133) and subjective assessment (AUC = 0.918, p = 0.0255). The O-RADS series models have good diagnostic performance for AMs. Where, O-RADS (v2022) has higher accuracy and specificity than O-RADS (v1). The accuracy and specificity of O-RADS (v1), however, can be further improved when combined with SRR assessment.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no competing interests.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Flow chart for study population selection.
Figure 2
Figure 2
ROC curve for subjective assessment, O-RADS (v1), O-RADS (v1) combined with SRR and O-RADS (v2022).
Figure 3
Figure 3
A 65-year-old woman with a fibroma of the ovary in the left adnexal region. (a) and (b) Longitudinal and transverse section of the lesion, B-mode US showed a smooth solid mass with acoustic shadowing. (c) Small amount of blood flow signal within the lesion (Color Score = 2). (d) Results of SRR assessment of the lesion. Lesions was classified as O-RADS (v1) category 4, O-RADS (v1) combined with SRR assessment and O-RADS (v2022) category 3.
Figure 4
Figure 4
A 38-year-old woman with a Mature teratoma in the right adnexal region. (a) and (b) Longitudinal and transverse section of the lesion, B-mode US showed a multilocular cyst with a solid component (maximal diameter 4.4 cm). (c) No clear blood flow signal was seen within the lesion (Color Score = 1). (d) Results of SRR assessment of the lesion. Both O-RADS (v1) and O-RADS (v2022) of the lesion were category 4, and O-RADS (v1) combined with SRR assessment was category 3.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Sehouli J, Grabowski JP. Surgery in recurrent ovarian cancer. Cancer. 2019;125:4598–4601. doi: 10.1002/cncr.32511. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Matulonis UA, Sood AK, Fallowfield L, Howitt BE, Sehouli J, Karlan BY. Ovarian cancer. Nat. Rev. Dis. Primers. 2016;2:16061. doi: 10.1038/nrdp.2016.61. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Hiett AK, Sonek JD, Guy M, Reid TJ. 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. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 2022;59(5):668–676. doi: 10.1002/uog.24777. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Higgins, R. V., van Nagell, J. R. Jr, Woods, C. H., Thompson, E. A. & Kryscio, R. J. Interobserver variation in ovarian measurements using transvaginal sonography. Gynecol. Oncol.39(1), 69–71 (1990). - PubMed
    1. Timmerman D, et al. Subjective assessment of adnexal masses with the use of ultrasonography: An analysis of interobserver variability and experience. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 1999;13(1):11–16. doi: 10.1046/j.1469-0705.1999.13010011.x. - DOI - PubMed

Publication types