OBJECTIVE: To compare the diagnostic performance of six different approaches for assessing myometrial infiltration using ultrasound in women with carcinoma of the corpus uteri. METHODS: Myometrial infiltration was assessed by two-dimensional (2D) transvaginal or transrectal ultrasound in 169 consecutive women with well (G1) or moderately (G2) differentiated endometrioid type endometrial carcinoma. In 74 of these women three-dimensional (3D) ultrasound was also performed. Six different techniques for myometrial infiltration assessment were evaluated. The impression of examiner and Karlsson's criteria were assessed prospectively. Endometrial thickness, tumor/uterine 3D volume ratio, tumor distance to myometrial serosa (TDS), and van Holsbeke's subjective model were assessed retrospectively. All subjects underwent surgical staging within 1 week after ultrasound evaluation. Definitive histopathological data regarding myometrial infiltration was used as gold standard. Sensitivity and specificity for all approaches were calculated and compared using McNemar test. RESULTS: The impression of examiner and subjective model performed similarly (sensitivity 79.5% and 80.5%, respectively; specificity 89.6% and 90.3%, respectively). Both methods had significantly better sensitivity than Karlsson's criteria (sensitivity 31.8%, p<0.05) and endometrial thickness (sensitivity 47.7%, p<0.05), and better specificity than tumor/uterine volume ratio (specificity 28.3%, p<0.05) and TDS (specificity 41.5%, p<0.05). CONCLUSION: Subjective impression seems to be the best approach for assessing myometrial infiltration in G1 or G2 endometrioid type endometrial cancer by transvaginal or transrectal ultrasound. The use of mathematical models and other objective 2D and 3D measurement techniques do not improve diagnostic performance.
Adult ; Aged ; Aged, 80 and over ; Carcinoma, Endometrioid/pathology/*ultrasonography ; Endometrial Neoplasms/pathology/*ultrastructure ; Female ; Humans ; Imaging, Three-Dimensional ; Middle Aged ; Models, Theoretical ; Myometrium/pathology/ultrasonography ; Neoplasm Invasiveness/pathology/*ultrasonography ; Prospective Studies ; Retrospective Studies ; Tumor Burden

Purpose: The aim of this study was to compare the diagnostic performance of the Gynecology Imaging Reporting and Data System (GI-RADS) and Ovarian-Adnexal Reporting and Data System (O-RADS) ultrasound (US) classification systems and assess their capacity to stratify the risk of malignancy in adnexal masses (AMs). Methods: A comprehensive search of MEDLINE (PubMed), Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar was conducted to identify articles published between January 2020 and August 2023. The quality of the studies, the risk of bias, and concerns regarding applicability were assessed using QUADAS-2. Results: The search yielded 132 citations. Five articles, which included a total of 2,448 AMs, were ultimately selected for inclusion. The risk of bias was high in all articles regarding patient selection, low in four studies for the index test, and unclear in three papers for the reference test. For GI-RADS, the pooled sensitivity and specificity were 90.8% (95% confidence interval [CI], 86.0% to 94.0%) and 91.5% (95% CI, 89.0% to 93.0%), respectively. For O-RADS, the pooled sensitivity and specificity were 95.1% (95% CI, 93.0% to 97.0%) and 88.8% (95% CI, 85.0% to 92.0%), respectively. O-RADS demonstrated greater sensitivity for malignancy than GI-RADS (P<0.05). Heterogeneity was moderate for both sensitivity and specificity with respect to GIRADS; for O-RADS, heterogeneity was moderate for sensitivity and high for specificity. Conclusion Both GI-RADS and O-RADS US demonstrate good diagnostic performance in the preoperative assessment of AMs. However, the O-RADS classification provides superior sensitivity.

Purpose: The aim of this study was to compare the diagnostic performance of the Gynecology Imaging Reporting and Data System (GI-RADS) and Ovarian-Adnexal Reporting and Data System (O-RADS) ultrasound (US) classification systems and assess their capacity to stratify the risk of malignancy in adnexal masses (AMs). Methods: A comprehensive search of MEDLINE (PubMed), Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar was conducted to identify articles published between January 2020 and August 2023. The quality of the studies, the risk of bias, and concerns regarding applicability were assessed using QUADAS-2. Results: The search yielded 132 citations. Five articles, which included a total of 2,448 AMs, were ultimately selected for inclusion. The risk of bias was high in all articles regarding patient selection, low in four studies for the index test, and unclear in three papers for the reference test. For GI-RADS, the pooled sensitivity and specificity were 90.8% (95% confidence interval [CI], 86.0% to 94.0%) and 91.5% (95% CI, 89.0% to 93.0%), respectively. For O-RADS, the pooled sensitivity and specificity were 95.1% (95% CI, 93.0% to 97.0%) and 88.8% (95% CI, 85.0% to 92.0%), respectively. O-RADS demonstrated greater sensitivity for malignancy than GI-RADS (P<0.05). Heterogeneity was moderate for both sensitivity and specificity with respect to GIRADS; for O-RADS, heterogeneity was moderate for sensitivity and high for specificity. Conclusion Both GI-RADS and O-RADS US demonstrate good diagnostic performance in the preoperative assessment of AMs. However, the O-RADS classification provides superior sensitivity.

Purpose: The aim of this study was to compare the diagnostic performance of the Gynecology Imaging Reporting and Data System (GI-RADS) and Ovarian-Adnexal Reporting and Data System (O-RADS) ultrasound (US) classification systems and assess their capacity to stratify the risk of malignancy in adnexal masses (AMs). Methods: A comprehensive search of MEDLINE (PubMed), Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar was conducted to identify articles published between January 2020 and August 2023. The quality of the studies, the risk of bias, and concerns regarding applicability were assessed using QUADAS-2. Results: The search yielded 132 citations. Five articles, which included a total of 2,448 AMs, were ultimately selected for inclusion. The risk of bias was high in all articles regarding patient selection, low in four studies for the index test, and unclear in three papers for the reference test. For GI-RADS, the pooled sensitivity and specificity were 90.8% (95% confidence interval [CI], 86.0% to 94.0%) and 91.5% (95% CI, 89.0% to 93.0%), respectively. For O-RADS, the pooled sensitivity and specificity were 95.1% (95% CI, 93.0% to 97.0%) and 88.8% (95% CI, 85.0% to 92.0%), respectively. O-RADS demonstrated greater sensitivity for malignancy than GI-RADS (P<0.05). Heterogeneity was moderate for both sensitivity and specificity with respect to GIRADS; for O-RADS, heterogeneity was moderate for sensitivity and high for specificity. Conclusion Both GI-RADS and O-RADS US demonstrate good diagnostic performance in the preoperative assessment of AMs. However, the O-RADS classification provides superior sensitivity.

Purpose: The aim of this study was to compare the diagnostic performance of the Gynecology Imaging Reporting and Data System (GI-RADS) and Ovarian-Adnexal Reporting and Data System (O-RADS) ultrasound (US) classification systems and assess their capacity to stratify the risk of malignancy in adnexal masses (AMs). Methods: A comprehensive search of MEDLINE (PubMed), Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar was conducted to identify articles published between January 2020 and August 2023. The quality of the studies, the risk of bias, and concerns regarding applicability were assessed using QUADAS-2. Results: The search yielded 132 citations. Five articles, which included a total of 2,448 AMs, were ultimately selected for inclusion. The risk of bias was high in all articles regarding patient selection, low in four studies for the index test, and unclear in three papers for the reference test. For GI-RADS, the pooled sensitivity and specificity were 90.8% (95% confidence interval [CI], 86.0% to 94.0%) and 91.5% (95% CI, 89.0% to 93.0%), respectively. For O-RADS, the pooled sensitivity and specificity were 95.1% (95% CI, 93.0% to 97.0%) and 88.8% (95% CI, 85.0% to 92.0%), respectively. O-RADS demonstrated greater sensitivity for malignancy than GI-RADS (P<0.05). Heterogeneity was moderate for both sensitivity and specificity with respect to GIRADS; for O-RADS, heterogeneity was moderate for sensitivity and high for specificity. Conclusion Both GI-RADS and O-RADS US demonstrate good diagnostic performance in the preoperative assessment of AMs. However, the O-RADS classification provides superior sensitivity.

Purpose: The aim of this study was to compare the diagnostic performance of the Gynecology Imaging Reporting and Data System (GI-RADS) and Ovarian-Adnexal Reporting and Data System (O-RADS) ultrasound (US) classification systems and assess their capacity to stratify the risk of malignancy in adnexal masses (AMs). Methods: A comprehensive search of MEDLINE (PubMed), Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar was conducted to identify articles published between January 2020 and August 2023. The quality of the studies, the risk of bias, and concerns regarding applicability were assessed using QUADAS-2. Results: The search yielded 132 citations. Five articles, which included a total of 2,448 AMs, were ultimately selected for inclusion. The risk of bias was high in all articles regarding patient selection, low in four studies for the index test, and unclear in three papers for the reference test. For GI-RADS, the pooled sensitivity and specificity were 90.8% (95% confidence interval [CI], 86.0% to 94.0%) and 91.5% (95% CI, 89.0% to 93.0%), respectively. For O-RADS, the pooled sensitivity and specificity were 95.1% (95% CI, 93.0% to 97.0%) and 88.8% (95% CI, 85.0% to 92.0%), respectively. O-RADS demonstrated greater sensitivity for malignancy than GI-RADS (P<0.05). Heterogeneity was moderate for both sensitivity and specificity with respect to GIRADS; for O-RADS, heterogeneity was moderate for sensitivity and high for specificity. Conclusion Both GI-RADS and O-RADS US demonstrate good diagnostic performance in the preoperative assessment of AMs. However, the O-RADS classification provides superior sensitivity.