Comparison of ADNEX Model with GI-RADS Ultrasound Scoring System in Evaluation of Adnexal Mass

被引:0
|
作者
Parveen, Nazia [1 ]
Gupta, Bindiya [1 ]
Tandon, Anupama [2 ]
Gogoi, Priyanka [3 ]
机构
[1] UCMS & GTB Hosp, Dept Obstet & Gynaecol, Delhi, India
[2] UCMS & GTB Hosp, Dept Radiodiag, Delhi, India
[3] AIIMS Guwahati, Dept Pathol, Gauhati, Assam, India
关键词
ADNEX; Ultrasound; Neoplasia; Doppler; Malignancy; Biopsy;
D O I
10.1007/s13224-024-02000-9
中图分类号
R71 [妇产科学];
学科分类号
100211 ;
摘要
Purpose of the study This study aimed to evaluate and compare the diagnostic accuracy of two ultrasound scoring systems, Assessment of Different Neoplasias in the Adnexa (ADNEX) Model and Gynecology Imaging Reporting and Data System (GI-RADS), for the preoperative assessment of adnexal masses taking histopathology as gold standard. Methods This analytical study assessed 60 patients of age > 14 years with adnexal masses, planned for surgery. Ultrasound assessment and risk categorization according to ADNEX and GI-RADS were performed 2-3 days prior to surgery. Histopathology was used as a reference standard for the calculation of validity of two ultrasound scoring systems for diagnosis of adnexal masses. Results Out of 60 women (mean age, 35.52 +/- 13.86 years; range, 16-70 years) with adnexal masses, 24 were malignant and 36 were benign. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV) and accuracy for the ADNEX model were 87.50%, 91.7%, 87.50%, 91.7% and 90.0%, respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV and accuracy of the GI-RADS category were 95.8%, 61.1%, 62.2%, 95.7% and 75.0%, respectively. The diagnostic performance of the ADNEX model was better as compared to GI-RADS in terms of specificity and positive predictive value with a significant difference (p < 0.05). The area under curve (AUC) was 0.957 and 0.919 for ADNEX and GI-RADS, respectively (p = 0.252). Conclusion Although both ADNEX and GI-RADS systems had satisfactory diagnostic performances and high negative predictive values, the ADNEX model showed better specificity and positive predictive value in comparison with GI-RADS.
引用
收藏
页数:7
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Comparison of the value of the GI-RADS and ADNEX models in the diagnosis of adnexal tumors by junior physicians
    Chen, Yongjian
    Li, Yanru
    Su, Huiling
    Lyu, Guorong
    [J]. FRONTIERS IN ONCOLOGY, 2024, 14
  • [2] Diagnostic performance of GI-RADS reporting system in evaluation of adnexal masses
    Abd Elsalam, Sahar Mahmoud
    Hamed, Soha Talaat
    Sayed, Mohamed Abd Elghafar
    [J]. EGYPTIAN JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY AND NUCLEAR MEDICINE, 2020, 51 (01):
  • [3] Comparison of O-RADS, GI-RADS, and ADNEX for Diagnosis of Adnexal Masses An External Validation Study Conducted by Junior Sonologists
    Lai, Hong-wei
    Lyu, Guo-rong
    Kang, Zhuo
    Li, Li-ya
    Zhang, Ying
    Huang, Yi-jun
    [J]. JOURNAL OF ULTRASOUND IN MEDICINE, 2022, 41 (06) : 1497 - 1507
  • [4] Diagnostic performance of GI-RADS reporting system in evaluation of adnexal masses
    Sahar Mahmoud Abd elsalam
    Soha Talaat Hamed
    Mohamed Abd elghafar Sayed
    [J]. Egyptian Journal of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, 51
  • [5] GI-RADS reporting system for ultrasound evaluation of adnexal masses in clinical practice: a prospective multicenter study
    Amor, F.
    Alcazar, J. L.
    Vaccaro, H.
    Leon, M.
    Iturra, A.
    [J]. ULTRASOUND IN OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY, 2011, 38 (04) : 450 - 455
  • [6] Assessment of the diagnostic value of using serum CA125 and GI-RADS system in the evaluation of adnexal masses
    Zheng, Heng
    Tie, Yan
    Wang, Xi
    Yang, Yang
    Wei, Xiawei
    Zhao, Xia
    [J]. MEDICINE, 2019, 98 (07)
  • [7] A systematic approach to adnexal masses discovered on ultrasound: the ADNEx MR scoring system
    Elizabeth A. Sadowski
    Jessica B. Robbins
    Andrea G. Rockall
    Isabelle Thomassin-Naggara
    [J]. Abdominal Radiology, 2018, 43 : 679 - 695
  • [8] A systematic approach to adnexal masses discovered on ultrasound: the ADNEx MR scoring system
    Sadowski, Elizabeth A.
    Robbins, Jessica B.
    Rockall, Andrea G.
    Thomassin-Naggara, Isabelle
    [J]. ABDOMINAL RADIOLOGY, 2018, 43 (03) : 679 - 695
  • [9] Comparison of O-RADS, GI-RADS, and IOTA simple rules regarding malignancy rate, validity, and reliability for diagnosis of adnexal masses
    Mohammad Abd Alkhalik Basha
    Maha Ibrahime Metwally
    Shrif A. Gamil
    Hamada M. Khater
    Sameh Abdelaziz Aly
    Ahmed A. El Sammak
    Mohamed M. A. Zaitoun
    Enass M. Khattab
    Taghreed M. Azmy
    Nader Ali Alayouty
    Nesreen Mohey
    Hosam Nabil Almassry
    Hala Y. Yousef
    Safaa A. Ibrahim
    Ekramy A. Mohamed
    Abd El Motaleb Mohamed
    Amira Hamed Mohamed Afifi
    Ola A. Harb
    Hesham Youssef Algazzar
    [J]. European Radiology, 2021, 31 : 674 - 684
  • [10] Comparison of O-RADS, GI-RADS, and IOTA simple rules regarding malignancy rate, validity, and reliability for diagnosis of adnexal masses
    Basha, Mohammad Abd Alkhalik
    Metwally, Maha Ibrahime
    Gamil, Shrif A.
    Khater, Hamada M.
    Aly, Sameh Abdelaziz
    El Sammak, Ahmed A.
    Zaitoun, Mohamed M. A.
    Khattab, Enass M.
    Azmy, Taghreed M.
    Alayouty, Nader Ali
    Mohey, Nesreen
    Almassry, Hosam Nabil
    Yousef, Hala Y.
    Ibrahim, Safaa A.
    Mohamed, Ekramy A.
    Mohamed, Abd El Motaleb
    Afifi, Amira Hamed Mohamed
    Harb, Ola A.
    Algazzar, Hesham Youssef
    [J]. EUROPEAN RADIOLOGY, 2021, 31 (02) : 674 - 684