Donald School Journal of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology

Register      Login

VOLUME 11 , ISSUE 2 ( April-June, 2017 ) > List of Articles

RESEARCH ARTICLE

External Validation of Gynecological Imaging and Reporting Data System for Sonographic Evaluation of Adnexal Masses

Linder Diaz, Belkys Zambrano, Fabio J Adami

Keywords : Adnexal masses,Diagnosis,Management,Reporting,Ultrasound

Citation Information : Diaz L, Zambrano B, Adami FJ. External Validation of Gynecological Imaging and Reporting Data System for Sonographic Evaluation of Adnexal Masses. Donald School J Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2017; 11 (2):135-140.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10009-1514

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 00-06-2017

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2017; Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd.


Abstract

Objective

To perform an external validation of Gynecological Imaging and Reporting Data System (GI-RADS) and to assess how referring clinicians value this reporting system in their daily practice.

Materials and methods

Prospective observational study comprising 257 women (mean age 40.3 years) and 281 adnexal masses, referred by 20 clinicians to an ultrasound referral center. All women underwent transvaginal or transrectal ultrasound. Presumed diagnosis of the adnexal mass was based on examiner's subjective impression according to patter recognition analysis. Reporting was performed according to GI-RADS classification. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), positive likelihood ratio (LR+), and negative likelihood ratio (LR-) of the GI-RADS were calculated. The gold standard was histologic diagnosis (benign or malignant) or spontaneous resolution of the cyst during follow-up (benign). Referring clinicians were asked for completing a survey in order to assess how useful they considered this reporting system.

Results

In this study, 56 masses were classified as GI-RADS 2, 174 masses were classified as GI-RADS 3, 19 masses were classified as GI-RADS 4, and 32 masses were classified as GI-RADS 5. Among them, 230 masses were removed surgically and 51 masses resolved spontaneously. There were 35 malignant lesions. Sensitivity, specificity, LR+, and LR- were 97.1% (95% confidence interval (CI): 85.5–99.5%), 93.1% (95%CI: 89.2– 95.6%), 14.1 (95%CI: 8.8–22.3), and 0.03 (95%CI: 0.004–0.21) respectively. All 20 referring clinicians reported that GI-RADS was very useful for their clinical decision-making process.

Conclusion

GI-RADS shows a high diagnostic performance and is helpful for referring clinicians for taking clinical decisions.

How to cite this article

Diaz L, Zambrano B, Adami FJ, Alcázar JL. External Validation of Gynecological Imaging and Reporting Data System for Sonographic Evaluation of Adnexal Masses. Donald School J Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2017;11(2):135-140.


PDF Share
  1. Management of the adnexal mass. Obstet Gynecol 2011 Jun;117(6):1413-1428.
  2. ACOG Practice Bulletin. Management of adnexal masses. Obstet Gynecol 2007 Jul;110(1):201-214.
  3. Comparison of ‘pattern recognition’ and logistic regression models for discrimination between benign and malignant pelvic masses: a prospective cross validation. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2001 Oct;18(4):357-365.
  4. Intraobserver and interobserver agreement of grayscale typical ultrasonographic patterns for the diagnosis of ovarian cancer. Ultrasound Med Biol 2008 Nov;34(11):1711-1716.
  5. Ultrasound experience substantially impacts on diagnostic performance and confidence when adnexal masses are classified using pattern recognition. Gynecol Obstet Invest 2010 Jan;69(3):160-168.
  6. Variations in ultrasound reporting on patients referred for investigation of ovarian masses. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2008 Oct;30(10):902-906.
  7. Adnexal masses: US characterization and reporting. Radiology 2010 Feb;254(2):342-354.
  8. Gynecologic imaging reporting and data system: a new proposal for classifying adnexal masses on the basis of sonographic findings. J Ultrasound Med 2009 Mar;28(3):285-291.
  9. BI-RADS: ultrasound. In: Breast imaging reporting and data system: BI-RADS atlas. 4th ed. Reston (VA): American College of Radiology; 2003.
  10. Evaluation of thyroid nodules by a scoring and categorizing method based on sonographic features. J Ultrasound Med 2015 Dec;34(12):2179-2185.
  11. Liver imaging reporting and data system with MR imaging: evaluation in nodules 20 mm or smaller detected in cirrhosis at screening US. Radiology 2015 Jun;275(3):698-707.
  12. The detection of significant prostate cancer is correlated with the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) in MRI/transrectal ultrasound fusion biopsy. World J Urol 2016 Apr;34(4):525-532.
  13. Intensive training program for ultrasound diagnosis of adnexal masses: protocol and preliminary results. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2013 Aug;42(2):218-223.
  14. Transvaginal ultrasonography in the diagnosis of extrauterine pelvic diseases. Expert Rev Obstet Gynecol 2008;3(6):731-752.
  15. GI-RADS reporting system for ultrasound evaluation of adnexal masses in clinical practice: a prospective multicenter study. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2011 Oct;38(4):450-455.
  16. ; Sobin, LH. WHO histological classification of ovarian tumors. Geneva: World Health Organization; 1999.
  17. Statistical methods for assessing observer variability in clinical measures. BMJ 1992 Jun;304(6840):1491-1494.
  18. The applicational value of GI-RADS ultrasonographic stratification in diagnosing adnexal masses. Chinese J Ultrasound Med 2013;29(6):527-530.
  19. Results of the Gynecologic Imaging Reporting and Data System classification in adnexal masses. Prog Obstet Gynecol 2015 Mar;58(3):125-129.
  20. Clinical application of the gynecologic imaging reporting and data system (GI-RADS) for the evaluation of adnexal masses. SM J Gynecol Obstet 2015 Jan;1(2):1009-1012.
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.