Improving the performance of IOTA simple rules: sonographic assessment of adnexal masses with resource-effective use of a magnetic resonance scoring (ADNEX MR scoring system).

PURPOSE: To compare the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis (IOTA) simple rules, simple rules risk ultrasound models, alone or in combination with magnetic resonance (MR) score to predict malignancy in women with adnexal masses. METHODS: 171 women with adnexal masses were included from February 2014 to February 2016. 120 women had histopathological diagnosis obtained from surgery or percutaneous biopsy. The other 51 women were submitted to surveillance with ultrasound (US) for at least 1 year. Patients were examined with US and MR. US reports were rendered using IOTA systems. We compared five diagnostic approaches, aimed at diagnosing women with malignant tumors among those with adnexal masses: We calculated the performance and net benefits (decision curve analysis) for five distinct diagnostic approaches: (1) US simple rules (SR), (2) simple rules risk score (SRRisk), (3) US SR followed by subjective assessment (SA) of indeterminate cases, (4) SR followed by MR score for the indeterminate cases, and (5) MR score for all women. RESULTS: The MR score for all patients was the approach that yielded the best-standardized net benefit regardless of the risk threshold. However, referring women with indeterminate masses on SR to MR score yielded the second-best net benefit. CONCLUSION: Although this study leaves no doubt about the superiority of MR score over US-based methods for the discrimination of malignant tumors in women with adnexal masses, restricting the use of MR score only to women with indeterminate masses on US SR is a safe, appropriate way to triage women with adnexal masses.

Cysts within Otherwise Probably Benign Solid Breast Masses and the Risk of Malignancy.

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 ± standard deviation, 34.1 ± 16.6 mm) than benign masses (24.7 ± 16.7 mm) (P < 0.008). The mean largest cyst diameter was also larger among malignant (9.9 ± 7.1 mm) than benign masses (4.6 ± 3.6 mm) (P < 0.001). Agreement between measurements of the largest mass and cyst diameters was low (R(2) = 0.26). AUC for the largest cyst diameter (0.78) was similar to the AUC for the largest mass diameter (0.69) (p = 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.

Cysts within Otherwise Probably Benign Solid Breast Masses and the Risk of Malignancy / Cistos no interior de nódulo mamários benignos: risco de malignidade

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 standard deviation, 34.1 16.6 mm) than benign masses (24.7 16.7 mm) (P < 0.008). The mean largest cyst diameter was also larger among malignant (9.9 7.1 mm) than benign masses (4.6 3.6 mm) (P < 0.001). Agreement between measurements of the largest mass and cyst diameters was low (R2 = 0.26). AUC for the largest cyst diameter (0.78) was similar to the AUC for the largest mass diameter (0.69) ( p = 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.

Resumo Objetivo Avaliar se o maior diâmetro do cisto é útil para a classificação ultrassonográfica BI-RADS de nódulos mamários predominantemente sólidos, com forma oval, margens circunscritas e maior eixo paralelo à pele que, exceto pela presença do componente cístico, seriam classificados como provavelmente benignos. Métodos Este estudo foi aprovado pelo Comitê de Ética local. De março de 2009 a agosto de 2014, 170 nódulos mamários de 164 mulheres foram prospectivamente biópsiados. As medidas do maior diâmetro do maior cisto e do maior diâmetro do nódulo foram agrupados de acordo com os diagnósticos histopatológicos. O teste t de Student, a regressão linear e a área sob a curva ROC (AUC) foram utilizados para a avaliação estatística. Resultados O exame histopatológico revelou 143 (84%) nódulos benignos e 27 (16%) nódulos malignos. A média da medida do maior diâmetro dos nódulos foi maior entre os nódulos malignos (média desvio padrão, 34,1 16,6 mm) do que nos nódulos benignos (24,7 16,7 mm) (p < 0,008). A média do maior diâmetro do maior cisto também foi maior entre os nódulos malignos (9,9 7,1 mm) do que nos nódulos benignos (4,6 3,6 mm) (p < 0,001). A concordância entre as medidas dos maiores diâmetros dos nódulos e do maior diâmetro do maior cisto foi baixa (R2 = 0,26). A AUC do maior diâmetro do maior cisto (0,78) foi semelhante à AUC do maior diâmetro do nódulo (0,69) (p = 0,2). Os maiores diâmetros dos maiores cistos medindo < 3; 3 e < 11; e 11 mm tiveram um valor preditivo positivo de 0, 15 e 52%, respectivamente. Conclusão Componentes císticos < 3 mm identificados dentro de nódulos mamários que apresentam as demais características provavelmente benignas podem ser considerados clinicamente irrelevantes na caracterização ultrassonográfica. Por outro lado, nódulos que apresentam um componente cístico medindo 3 mm devem ser classificadas na categoria BI-RADS-US 4.

Performance of the Risk of Malignancy Index for Discriminating Malignant Tumors in Women With Adnexal Masses.

OBJECTIVES: We examined the performance of 4 risk of malignancy index (RMI) variants in a medium-resource gynecologic cancer center. METHODS: A total of 158 women referred for adnexal masses were evaluated before surgery by the 4 RMI variants. Physicians with varied experience in ultrasound assessment of adnexal masses performed ultrasound examinations. We compared the performance of the 4 RMI variants using receiver operating characteristic curve analyses followed by calculation of sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative likelihood ratios using the pathologic diagnosis of the masses as the reference standard. RESULTS: Among the 158 women with adnexal masses included in this study, 51 (32%) had malignant tumors; 26 (51%) of them were stage I. All RMI variants performed similarly (accuracy range, 74%-83%), regardless of menopausal status. Considering all women included, the positive likelihood ratios of the 4 RMI variants ranged from 3.52 to 4.41. In subset analyses, all RMI variants had decreased sensitivity for stage I malignant tumors and for those of nonepithelial histologic types. CONCLUSIONS: 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.