In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we aimed to assess the pooled diagnostic performance of the so-called Ovarian Adnexal Report Data System (O-RADS) for classifying adnexal masses using transvaginal ultrasound, a classification system that was introduced in 2020. We performed a search for studies reporting the use of the O-RADS system for classifying adnexal masses from January 2020 to April 2022 in several databases (Medline (PubMed), Google Scholar, Scopus, Cochrane, and Web of Science). We selected prospective and retrospective cohort studies using the O-RADS system for classifying adnexal masses with histologic diagnosis or conservative management demonstrating spontaneous resolution or persistence in cases of benign appearing masses after follow-up scan as the reference standard. We excluded studies not related to the topic under review, studies not addressing O-RADS classification, studies addressing MRI O-RADS classification, letters to the editor, commentaries, narrative reviews, consensus documents, and studies where data were not available for constructing a 2 × 2 table. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative likelihood ratios, and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) were calculated. The quality of the studies was evaluated using QUADAS-2. A total of 502 citations were identified. Ultimately, 11 studies comprising 4634 masses were included. The mean prevalence of ovarian malignancy was 32%. The risk of bias was high in eight studies for the “patient selection” domain. The risk of bias was low for the “index test” and “reference test” domains for all studies. Overall, the pooled estimated sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio, and DOR of the O-RADS system for classifying adnexal masses were 97% (95% confidence interval (CI) = 94%–98%), 77% (95% CI = 68%–84%), 4.2 (95% CI = 2.9–6.0), 0.04 (95% CI = 0.03–0.07), and 96 (95% CI = 50–185), respectively. Heterogeneity was moderate for sensitivity and high for specificity. In conclusion, the O-RADS system has good sensitivity and moderate specificity for classifying adnexal masses.

Background: Uterine myomas may resemble uterine sarcomas in some cases. However, the rate of benign myomas appearing as sarcomas at an ultrasound examination is not known. The objective of this study is to determine the percentage of benign myomas that appear suspicious for uterine sarcoma on ultrasound examination. This is a prospective observational multicenter study (June 2019–December 2021) comprising a consecutive series of patients with histologically proven uterine myoma after hysterectomy or myomectomy who underwent transvaginal and/or transabdominal ultrasound prior to surgery. All ultrasound examinations were performed by expert examiners. MUSA criteria were used to describe the lesions (1). Suspicion of sarcoma was established when three or more sonographic features, described by Ludovisi et al. as “frequently seen in uterine sarcoma”, were present (2). These features are no visible myometrium, irregular cystic areas, non-uniform echogenicity, irregular contour, “cooked” appearance, and a Doppler color score of 3–4. In addition, the examiners had to classify the lesion as suspicious based on her/his impression, independent of the number of features present. Eight hundred and ten women were included. The median maximum diameter of the myomas was 58.7 mm (range: 10.0–263.0 mm). Three hundred and forty-nine (43.1%) of the patients had more than one myoma. Using the criterion of >3 suspicious features, 40 (4.9%) of the myomas had suspicious appearance. By subjective impression, the examiners considered 40 (4.9%) cases suspicious. The cases were not exactly the same. We conclude that approximately 5% of benign uterine myomas may exhibit sonographic suspicion of sarcoma. Although it is a small percentage, it is not negligible.

algorithm, based on serum HE4, CA125 and patient's age as variables, has been developed using a training dataset. This algorithm was named Risk of Ovarian Cancer Kazan Index (ROCK-I). The validating group consisted of 227 consecutively operated premenopausal patients with pelvic mass out of which there were 193 cases of benign diseases, 27 cancers and 7 borderline ovarian tumors (BOT). Results ROCK-I demonstrated two fold less false positive results than ROMA. Thus, in the validating dataset, there was a statistically significant superiority of ROCK-I over ROMA in the specificity (92.2% and 84.5% respectively, p=0.017). Meanwhile, the sensitivity of ROCK-I was also numerically higher in all the scenarios of discrimination (table 1). When the scenario of discrimination 'benign disease vs the joint group of EOC (all stages) together with BOT stage Ic2-III' was used, ROC-AUC of ROCK-I, ROMA and CA 125 were 0.988, 0.946 and 0.937 respectively (figure 1). The difference in ROC-AUC between ROCK-I and CA125 was statistically significant (p=0.01) while the difference between ROMA and CA125 was not (p=0.79).Conclusion ROMA provides a suboptimal prediction, at least, in premenopausal patients. If a large independent validation shows similar or even slightly lower superiority of the novel ROCK-I over ROMA, it may provide a new basis of routineuse of HE4 in the preoperative assessment of premenopausal patients with pelvic mass.

No abstract

No abstract