Ovarian tumors (OTs) are common gynecological tumors in women. It is very important to correctly distinguish benign and malignant OTs.
Purpose
To assess the diagnostic performance of the American College of Radiology (ACR) Ovarian-Adnexal Reporting and Data System (O-RADS) and evaluate the clinical value of O-RADS combined with serum carbohydrate antigen 125 (CA125) and human epididymis protein 4 (HE4) in differentiating benign from malignant OTs.
Material and Methods
A retrospective analysis was performed on 431 cases including pathology and clinical data. The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was drawn, and sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and accuracy were calculated.
Results
In premenopausal women, O-RADS and O-RADS combined with serum CA125 and HE4 showed sensitivity at 92.2% and 94.8%, specificity at 91.8% and 93.4%, and accuracy at 91.9% and 93.8%, respectively. In postmenopausal women, the sensitivity of O-RADS, O-RADS combined with serum CA125 and HE4 was 94.8% and 95.8%, specificity was 83.9% and 93.6%, and accuracy was 90.5% and 95.6%, respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of O-RADS combined with CA125 and HE4 in premenopausal and postmenopausal women were higher than that of O-RADS (P<0.05).
Conclusion
O-RADS has high diagnostic performance in OTs. When O-RADS is combined with CA125 and HE4 in the diagnosis of OTs, the sensitivity and specificity are improved, which is helpful to improve the diagnostic efficiency of OTs and has high clinical application value.
Gaona-LuvianoPMedina-GaonaLAMagaña-PérezK. Epidemiology of ovarian cancer. Chin Clin Oncol 2020;9:47–53.
2.
AbramowiczJSTimmermanD. Ovarian mass-differentiating benign from malignant: the value of the international ovarian tumor analysis ultrasound rules. Am J Obstet Gynecol2017;217:652–660.
3.
LiPLZhangXLiTF, et al.Combined detection of sialic acid and hydroxyproline in diagnosis of ovarian cancer and its comparison with human epididymis protein 4 and carbohydrate antigen 125. Clin Chim Acta2015;439:148–153.
4.
GlancPBenacerrafBBourneT, et al. First international consensus report on adnexal masses: management recommendations. J Ultrasound Med2017;36:849–863.
5.
Vázquez-ManjarrezSERico-RodriguezOCGuzman-MartinezN, et al.Imaging and diagnostic approach of the adnexal mass: what the oncologist should know. Chin Clin Oncol2020;9:69–90.
6.
AtriMAlabousiAReinholdC, et al. ACR Appropriateness Criteria® clinically suspected adnexal mass, no acute symptoms.J Am Coll Radiol2019;16:S77 − S93.
7.
FroymanWTimmermanD. Methods of assessing ovarian masses: international ovarian tumor analysis approach. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am2019;46:625–641.
8.
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists’ Committee on Practice Bulletins—Gynecology. Practice Bulletin No. 174: evaluation and management of adnexal masses. Obstet Gynecol2016;128:e210–e226.
9.
BashaMAARefaatRIbrahimSA, et al. Gynecology imaging reporting and data system (GI-RADS): diagnostic performance and inter-reviewer agreement. Eur Radiol2019;29:5981–5990.
10.
PhinyoPPatumanondJSaenrungmuaengP, et al.Diagnostic added-value of serum CA-125 on the IOTA simple rules and derivation of practical combined prediction models (IOTA SR X CA-125). Diagnostics (Basel2021;11:173–189.
11.
LaiHWLyuGRKangZ, et al. Comparison of O-RADS, GI-RADS, and ADNEX for diagnosis of adnexal masses: an external validation study conducted by junior sonologists. J Ultrasound Med 2021;9999:1–11.
12.
HiettAKSonekJGuyM, et al.Performance of IOTA simple rules, simple rules risk assessment, ADNEX model and O-RADS in discriminating between benign and malignant adnexal lesions in north American population. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol2021. doi:10.1002/uog.24777
13.
QianLDuQJiangM, et al.Comparison of the diagnostic performances of ultrasound-based models for predicting malignancy in patients with adnexal masses. Front Oncol2021;11:673–681.
14.
AndreottiRFTimmermanDStrachowskiLM, et al. O-RADS US risk stratification and management system: a consensus guideline from the ACR ovarian-adnexal reporting and data system committee. Radiology2020;294:168–185.
15.
DochezVCaillonHVaucelE, et al.Biomarkers and algorithms for diagnosis of ovarian cancer: CA125. H (E4, RMI and ROMA, a review. J Ovarian Res2019;12:28.
16.
DochezVRandetMRenaudeauC, et al.Efficacy of HE4. C (A125, risk of malignancy Index and risk of ovarian malignancy Index to detect ovarian cancer in women with presumed benign ovarian tumours: a prospective, multicentre trial. J Clin Med2019;8:1784–1794.
17.
OlsenMLofPStiekemaA, et al.The diagnostic accuracy of human epididymis protein 4 (HE4) for discriminating between benign and malignant pelvic masses: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand2021;100:1788–1799.
18.
ZhengLEQuJYHeF. The diagnosis and pathological value of combined detection of HE4 and CA125 for patients with ovarian cancer. Open Med (Wars)2016;11:125–132.
19.
BashaMAAMetwallyMIGamilSA, et al. Comparison of O-RADS, GI-RADS, and IOTA simple rules regarding malignancy rate, validity, and reliability for diagnosis of adnexal masses. Eur Radiol2021;31:674–684.
20.
CaoLWeiMLiuY, et al. Validation of American College of Radiology ovarian-adnexal reporting and data system ultrasound (O-RADS US): analysis on 1054 adnexal masses. Gynecol Oncol2021;162:107–112.
21.
KaijserJBourneTValentinL, et al.Improving strategies for diagnosing ovarian cancer: a summary of the international ovarian tumor analysis (IOTA) studies. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol2013;41:9–20.
22.
PratJ. FIGO’s staging classification for cancer of the ovary, fallopian tube, and peritoneum: abridged republication. J Gynecol Oncol2015;26:87–89.
23.
AndreottiRFTimmermanDBenacerrafBR, et al. Ovarian-adnexal reporting lexicon for ultrasound: a white paper of the ACR ovarian-adnexal reporting and data system committee. J Am Coll Radiol2018;15:1415–1429.
24.
PiYWilsonMPKatlariwalaP, et al.Diagnostic accuracy and inter-observer reliability of the O-RADS scoring system among staff radiologists in a north American academic clinical setting. Abdom Radiol (NY)2021;46:4967–4973.
25.
TimmermanDVan CalsterBTestaA, et al.Predicting the risk of malignancy in adnexal masses based on the simple rules from the international ovarian tumor analysis group. Am J Obstet Gynecol2016;214:424–437.
26.
HidalgoJJRosFAubáM, et al.Prospective external validation of IOTA three-step strategy for characterizing and classifying adnexal masses and retrospective assessment of alternative two-step strategy using simple-rules risk. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol2019;53:693–700.
27.
LyckeMKristjansdottirBSundfeldtK. A multicenter clinical trial validating the performance of HE4, CA125, risk of ovarian malignancy algorithm and risk of malignancy index. Gynecol Oncol2018;151:159–165.
28.
GuoWZouXXuH, et al. The diagnostic performance of the gynecologic imaging reporting and data system (GI-RADS) in adnexal masses. Ann Transl Med2021;9:398.
29.
WanQLiuYLvB, et al.Correlation of molecular tumor markers CA125, HE4, and CEA with the development and progression of epithelial ovarian cancer. Iran J Public Health2021;50:1197–1205.
30.
RiusMFustéPRosC, et al.HE4 might be a more useful tumor biomarker to detect malignancy in patients with ovarian endometrioma when malignancy is suspected. J Int Med Res2021;49:1–9.
31.
MigdaMBartoszMMigdaMS, et al.Diagnostic value of the gynecology imaging reporting and data system (GI-RADS) with the ovarian malignancy marker CA-125 in preoperative adnexal tumor assessment. J Ovarian Res2018;11:92–97.
32.
ZhangPWangCChengL, et al. Comparison of HE4. C (A125, and ROMA diagnostic accuracy: a prospective and multicenter study for Chinese women with epithelial ovarian cancer. Medicine (Baltimore)2015;94:e2402.
33.
SunJCuiXWLiYS, et al.The value of 18F-FDG PET/CT imaging combined with detection of CA125 and HE4 in the diagnosis of recurrence and metastasis of ovarian cancer. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci2020;24:7276–7283.
