The majority of adnexal masses in our study were classified correctly using the IOTA ADNEX model. On the basis of our findings, we would expect the model to aid in the management of women with an adnexal mass presenting to a gynecological oncology center. Copyright © 2016 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

PURPOSEWe aimed to evaluate the ADNEX MR scoring system for the prediction of adnexal mass malignancy, using a simplified magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) protocol. METHODSIn this prospective study, 200 patients with 237 adnexal masses underwent MRI between February 2014 and February 2016 and were followed until February 2017. Two radiologists calculated ADNEX MR scores using an MRI protocol with a simplified dynamic study, not a high temporal resolution study, as originally proposed. Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, likelihood ratios, and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve were calculated (cutoff for malignancy, score ≥ 4). The reference standard was histopathologic diagnosis or imaging findings during >12 months of follow-up. RESULTSOf 237 lesions, 79 (33.3%) were malignant. The ADNEX MR scoring system, using a simplified MRI protocol, showed 94.9% (95% confidence interval [CI], 87.5%-98.6%) sensitivity and 97.5% (95% CI, 93.6%-99.3%) specificity in malignancy prediction; it was thus highly accurate, like the original system. The level of interobserver agreement on simplified scoring was high (κ = 0.91). CONCLUSIONIn a tertiary cancer center, the ADNEX MR scoring system, even based on a simplified MRI protocol, performed well in the prediction of malignant adnexal masses. This scoring system may enable the standardization of MRI reporting on adnexal masses, thereby improving communication between radiologists and gynecologists.You may cite this article as: Pereira PN, Sarian LO, Yoshida A, et al. Accuracy of the ADNEX MR scoring system based on a simplified MRI protocol for the assessment of adnexal masses. Diagn Interv Radiol 2018; 24:63-71. A dnexal masses are frequent findings in pelvic and abdominal imaging studies, such as those conducted with ultrasonography (US), computed tomography (CT), and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) (1). Preoperative evaluation of these lesions and determination of the risk of malignancy are critical to define treatment. A lesion with a low risk of malignancy can be followed or treated with minimally invasive surgery performed by a general gynecologist. When the risk of malignancy is significant, the patient should be referred to a tertiary center for treatment by a multidisciplinary team that includes an oncologic gynecologist (2, 3).Every year, about 240 000 women worldwide are diagnosed with ovarian cancer. The 5-year survival rate is less than 45%, and ovarian cancer is responsible for about 150 000 deaths annually. Thus, it is the seventh most common cancer and the eighth most common cause of cancer death among women (4).US is the first-line modality for the assessment of suspected adnexal masses, with very accurate results (5). However, US examination yields indeterminate findings in approximately 20% of adnexal masses (6-8). Exophytic and large tumors, fatty components, clots that mimic vegetation, and fibrous tumors have morphologic characteristics that are difficult to interpret with US. Other imaging methods (e...

The 4 RMI variants performed acceptably in a medium-resource setting where ultrasound examiners were physicians with varied experience. This finding indicates a good tradeoff between performance and feasibility, since ultrasound RMI protocols are of low complexity.

No abstract

Objective The objective of this study is to assess whether the largest cyst diameter is useful for BI-RADS ultrasonography classification of predominantly solid breast masses with an oval shape, circumscribed margins, and largest axis parallel to the skin, which, except for the cystic component, would be likely classified as benign. Methods This study received approval from the local institutional review board. From March 2009 to August 2014, we prospectively biopsied 170 breast masses from 164 women. We grouped the largest cyst and mass diameters according to histopathological diagnoses. We used Student's t-test, linear regression, and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) for statistical assessment. Results Histopathological examination revealed 143 (84%) benign and 27 (16%) malignant masses. The mean largest mass diameter was larger among malignant (mean AE standard deviation, 34.1 AE 16.6 mm) than benign masses (24.7 AE 16.7 mm) (P < 0.008). The mean largest cyst diameter was also larger among malignant (9.9 AE 7.1 mm) than benign masses (4.6 AE 3.6 mm) (P < 0.001). Agreement between measurements of the largest mass and cyst diameters was low (R 2 ¼ 0.26). AUC for the largest cyst diameter (0.78) was similar to the AUC for the largest mass diameter (0.69) (p ¼ 0.2). A largest cyst diameter < 3, ! 3 to < 11, and ! 11 mm had a positive predictive value of 0, 15, and 52%, respectively. Conclusion A largest cystic component < 3 mm identified within breast masses that show favorable characteristics may be considered clinically inconsequential in ultrasonography characterization. Conversely, masses with a largest cystic component ! 3 mm should be classified as BI-RADS-US category 4.