Isabelle Thomassin‐Naggara

Editorial for “Validity and Reproducibility of ADNEX MR SCORING System in Diagnosis of Sonographically Indeterminate Adnexal Masses”

Tumeurs frontières de l’ovaire. Recommandations pour la pratique clinique du CNGOF – Imagerie

To determine the place of imaging and the performance of different imaging techniques (transvaginal ultrasound with or without Doppler, scoring, CT, MRI) to differentiate benign tumour, borderline ovarian tumour (BOT) and malignant ovarian tumor. Differentiate the histological subtypes of BOT (serous, sero-mucinous, mucinous) and prediction in imaging of the possibility of conservative treatment. The research was carried out over the last 16 years using the terms "MeSH" based on the query of the Medline® database and supplemented by the review of references contained in the meta-analyzes, systematic reviews and original articles included. Endo-vaginal and suprapubic ultrasonography is recommended for analysis of an ovarian mass (grade A). In the case of ultrasound by a referent, subjective analysis is the recommended technique (grade A). In case of echography by a non-referent, the use of "Simple Rules" is recommended (grade A) and should be best combined with subjective analysis to rejoin the performance of a sonographer refer (grade A). In cases of undetermined ovarian lesions in endovaginal ultrasound and suprapubic ultrasound, it is recommended to perform a pelvic MRI (grade A). The MRI protocol should include T2, T1, T1 sequences with fat saturation, diffusion, injected dynamics, and after gadolinium injection (grade B). To characterize an MRI-adnexal image, it is recommended to include a risk score for malignancy (ADNEX-MR/O-RADS) (grade C) in the report and to formulate an anatomopathological hypothesis (Grade C). The predictive signs of benignity in front of a cyst with endocystic vegetations are the low number, the small size, the presence of calcifications and the absence of Doppler flow in case of size greater than 10mm in echography (LP 4) and a curve of type 1 MRI (LP4). MRI is recommended for suspicious lesions of BOT in ultrasound (grade B) or indeterminate lesions in ultrasound (grade A). There is no data to support the usefulness of CT or PET-CT for BOT. Morphological criteria in ultrasound and MRI exist to differentiate BOT from invasive tumors regardless of grade (NP 2). Pelvic MRI is recommended to characterize a tumor suggestive of ultrasound BOT (grade C). No recommendations can be made about the use of combined ultrasound, biological, and menopausal status scores for the diagnosis of BOT. The diagnostic performance of imaging to detect peritoneal implants of BOT is not known. The assessment of the invasiveness of peritoneal implants of imaging BOT has not been evaluated. The association of macroscopic signs in MRI makes it possible to differentiate the different subtypes - serous, sero-mucinous and mucinous (intestinal type) - of BOT, despite the overlap of certain presentations (LP3). The analysis of macroscopic MRI signs must be performed to differentiate the different subtypes of TFO (grade C). No recommendation can be made on imaging prediction of the possibility of conservative BOT treatment.

Correspondence on "ESGO/ISUOG/IOTA/ESGE consensus statement on pre-operative diagnosis of ovarian tumors" by Timmerman et al

O-RADS MRI score: analysis of misclassified cases in a prospective multicentric European cohort

To retrospectively review the causes of categorization errors using O-RADS-MRI score and to determine the presumptive causes of these misclassifications. EURAD database was retrospectively queried to identify misclassified lesions. In this cohort, 1194 evaluable patients with 1502 pelvic masses (277 malignant / 1225 benign lesions) underwent standardized MRI to characterize adnexal masses with histology or 2 years' follow-up as a reference standard. An expert radiologist reviewed cases with two junior radiologists and lesions termed misclassified if malignant lesion was scored ≤ 3, a benign lesion was scored ≥ 4, the site of origin was incorrect, or a non-adnexal mass was incorrectly categorized as benign or malignant. There were 139 / 1502 (9.2%) misclassified masses in 116 women including 109 adnexal and 30 non-adnexal masses. False-negative cases corresponded to 16 borderline or invasive malignant adnexal masses rated score ≤ 3 (16 / 139, 11.5%). False-positive cases corresponded to 88 benign masses were rated score 4 (67 / 139, 48.2%) or 5 (18 / 139,12.9%) or considered suspicious non-adnexal lesions (3 / 139, 2.2%). Misclassifications were only due to origin error in 12 adnexal masses (8 benign, 4 malignant) (8.6%, 12 / 139) and 23 non-adnexal masses (18 benign, 5 malignant,16.5%, 23 / 139) perceived respectively as non-adnexal and adnexal masses. Interpretive error (n = 104), failure to recognize technical insufficient exams (n = 9), and perceptual errors (n = 4) were found. Most interpretive was due to misinterpretation of solid tissue or incorrect assignment of mass origin. Eighty-four out of 139 cases were correctly reclassified by the readers with strict adherence to the score rules. Most errors were due to misinterpretation of solid tissue or incorrect assignment of mass origin. • Prospective assignment of O-RADS-MRI score resulted in misclassification of 9.25% of sonographically indeterminate pelvic masses. • Most errors were interpretive (74.8%) due to misinterpretation of solid tissue as defined by the lexicon or incorrect assignment of mass origin. • Pelvic inflammatory disease is a common source of misclassification (8.9%) (12 / 139).