Purpose: This study compared the diagnostic performance of the Ovarian-Adnexal Reporting and Data System (O-RADS), the Risk of Malignancy Index 4 (RMI4), the International Ovarian of Tumor Analysis Logistic Regression Model 2 (IOTA LR2), and the IOTA Simple Rules (IOTA SR) in predicting the malignancy of adnexal masses (AMs). Methods: This retrospective study included 575 women with AMs between 2017 and 2020. All clinical messages, ultrasound images, and pathological findings were collected. Two senior doctors (group I) and two junior doctors (group II) used the four systems to classify AMs. The postoperative pathological diagnosis was used as the gold standard to evaluate the diagnostic efficiency. A receiver operating characteristic curve was used to test the diagnostic performance. The interrater agreement between the two groups was tested using kappa values. Results: Of all 592 AMs, 447 (75.5%) were benign, 123 (20.8%) were malignant, and 22 (3.7%) were borderline. The intergroup consistency test yielded kappa values of 0.71, 0.92, 0.68, and 0.77 for the O-RADS, RMI4, IOTA LR2, and IOTA SR, respectively. To predict malignant lesions, the areas under the curve of the O-RADS, RMI4, IOTA LR2, and IOTA SR systems were 0.90, 0.89, 0.90, and 0.86 for group I and 0.89, 0.87, 0.88, and 0.84 for group II, respectively. The O-RADS had the highest sensitivity (91.0% in group I and 84.8% in group II). Conclusion The four diagnostic systems could compensate for junior doctors’ inexperience in predicting malignant adnexal lesions. The O-RADS performed best and showed the highest sensitivity.

OBJECTIVES: International Ovarian Tumor Analysis (IOTA) working group proposed a logistic regression (IOTA LR2) model. It is served as a risk prediction model for benign and malignant adnexal tumors. This study aims to compare the diagnostic efficiency between the IOTA LR2 model and doctors' subjective assessment on diagnosing benign and malignant adnexal mass. METHODS: The ultrasonographic images of 616 adnexal masses were retrospectively analyzed by the senior doctors' group and the junior doctors' group using the IOTA LR2 model and subjective assessment. The postoperative pathological diagnosis was used as the gold standard to compare the diagnostic efficiency of the 2 methods. RESULTS: The area under the curves of subjective assessment and IOTA LR2 model for diagnosing malignant adnexal masses were 0.86 and 0.90 for the senior doctors' group and 0.79 and 0.88 for the junior doctors' group, respectively. The sensitivity and specificity of subjective assessment for diagnosing the malignant adnexal masses were 81.0% and 91.3% for the senior doctors' group and 70.1% and 88.7% for the junior doctors' group, respectively. The sensitivity and specificity of the IOTA LR2 model for diagnosing the malignant adnexal masses were 79.6% and 88.1% for the senior doctors' group, and 79.6% and 81.7% for the junior doctors' group, respectively.There were no significant difference in the sensitivities between the senior doctors' group and junior doctors' group using the IOTA LR2 model and the senior doctors' group using subjective assessment (both P>0.05). CONCLUSIONS The diagnostic efficiency of the IOTA LR2 model is equal to the senior doctors' experiences. This model can help junior doctors to reduce the missed diagnosis of malignant adnexal masses.
Adnexal Diseases/pathology* ; Diagnosis, Differential ; Female ; Humans ; Ovarian Neoplasms/diagnostic imaging* ; Retrospective Studies