{"title":"ADNEX模型与GI-RADS超声评分系统评价附件肿块的比较。","authors":"Yasmin, Nazia Parveen, Bindiya Gupta, Anupama Tandon, Priyanka Gogoi","doi":"10.1007/s13224-024-02000-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose of the study: </strong>This study aimed to evaluate and compare the diagnostic accuracy of two ultrasound scoring systems, Assessment of Different Neoplasias in the Adnexa (ADNEX) Model and Gynecology Imaging Reporting and Data System (GI-RADS), for the preoperative assessment of adnexal masses taking histopathology as gold standard.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This analytical study assessed 60 patients of age > 14 years with adnexal masses, planned for surgery. Ultrasound assessment and risk categorization according to ADNEX and GI-RADS were performed 2-3 days prior to surgery. Histopathology was used as a reference standard for the calculation of validity of two ultrasound scoring systems for diagnosis of adnexal masses.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Out of 60 women (mean age, 35.52 ± 13.86 years; range, 16-70 years) with adnexal masses, 24 were malignant and 36 were benign. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV) and accuracy for the ADNEX model were 87.50%, 91.7%, 87.50%, 91.7% and 90.0%, respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV and accuracy of the GI-RADS category were 95.8%, 61.1%, 62.2%, 95.7% and 75.0%, respectively. The diagnostic performance of the ADNEX model was better as compared to GI-RADS in terms of specificity and positive predictive value with a significant difference (<i>p</i> < 0.05). The area under curve (AUC) was 0.957 and 0.919 for ADNEX and GI-RADS, respectively (<i>p</i> = 0.252).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Although both ADNEX and GI-RADS systems had satisfactory diagnostic performances and high negative predictive values, the ADNEX model showed better specificity and positive predictive value in comparison with GI-RADS.</p>","PeriodicalId":51563,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology of India","volume":"75 Suppl 1","pages":"86-92"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12085478/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of ADNEX Model with GI-RADS Ultrasound Scoring System in Evaluation of Adnexal Mass.\",\"authors\":\"Yasmin, Nazia Parveen, Bindiya Gupta, Anupama Tandon, Priyanka Gogoi\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s13224-024-02000-9\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose of the study: </strong>This study aimed to evaluate and compare the diagnostic accuracy of two ultrasound scoring systems, Assessment of Different Neoplasias in the Adnexa (ADNEX) Model and Gynecology Imaging Reporting and Data System (GI-RADS), for the preoperative assessment of adnexal masses taking histopathology as gold standard.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This analytical study assessed 60 patients of age > 14 years with adnexal masses, planned for surgery. Ultrasound assessment and risk categorization according to ADNEX and GI-RADS were performed 2-3 days prior to surgery. Histopathology was used as a reference standard for the calculation of validity of two ultrasound scoring systems for diagnosis of adnexal masses.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Out of 60 women (mean age, 35.52 ± 13.86 years; range, 16-70 years) with adnexal masses, 24 were malignant and 36 were benign. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV) and accuracy for the ADNEX model were 87.50%, 91.7%, 87.50%, 91.7% and 90.0%, respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV and accuracy of the GI-RADS category were 95.8%, 61.1%, 62.2%, 95.7% and 75.0%, respectively. The diagnostic performance of the ADNEX model was better as compared to GI-RADS in terms of specificity and positive predictive value with a significant difference (<i>p</i> < 0.05). The area under curve (AUC) was 0.957 and 0.919 for ADNEX and GI-RADS, respectively (<i>p</i> = 0.252).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Although both ADNEX and GI-RADS systems had satisfactory diagnostic performances and high negative predictive values, the ADNEX model showed better specificity and positive predictive value in comparison with GI-RADS.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51563,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology of India\",\"volume\":\"75 Suppl 1\",\"pages\":\"86-92\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12085478/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology of India\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s13224-024-02000-9\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/6/29 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology of India","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s13224-024-02000-9","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/6/29 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
研究目的:本研究旨在评价和比较两种超声评分系统——附件中不同肿瘤的评估(ADNEX)模型和妇科影像报告与数据系统(GI-RADS)在术前以组织病理学为金标准评估附件肿块的诊断准确性。方法:本分析研究评估60例年龄在bb0 ~ 14岁的附件肿块患者,计划手术治疗。术前2-3天进行超声评估并根据ADNEX和GI-RADS进行风险分类。以组织病理学为参考标准,计算两种超声评分系统诊断附件肿块的有效性。结果:60例女性(平均年龄35.52±13.86岁;范围16-70岁),其中24例为恶性,36例为良性。ADNEX模型的敏感性、特异性、阳性预测值(PPV)、阴性预测值(NPV)和准确性分别为87.50%、91.7%、87.50%、91.7%和90.0%。GI-RADS分类的敏感性为95.8%,特异性为61.1%,PPV为62.2%,NPV为95.7%,准确性为75.0%。在特异性和阳性预测值方面,ADNEX模型的诊断性能优于GI-RADS,差异有统计学意义(p p = 0.252)。结论:虽然ADNEX和GI-RADS系统均具有满意的诊断性能和较高的阴性预测值,但与GI-RADS相比,ADNEX模型具有更好的特异性和阳性预测值。
Comparison of ADNEX Model with GI-RADS Ultrasound Scoring System in Evaluation of Adnexal Mass.
Purpose of the study: This study aimed to evaluate and compare the diagnostic accuracy of two ultrasound scoring systems, Assessment of Different Neoplasias in the Adnexa (ADNEX) Model and Gynecology Imaging Reporting and Data System (GI-RADS), for the preoperative assessment of adnexal masses taking histopathology as gold standard.
Methods: This analytical study assessed 60 patients of age > 14 years with adnexal masses, planned for surgery. Ultrasound assessment and risk categorization according to ADNEX and GI-RADS were performed 2-3 days prior to surgery. Histopathology was used as a reference standard for the calculation of validity of two ultrasound scoring systems for diagnosis of adnexal masses.
Results: Out of 60 women (mean age, 35.52 ± 13.86 years; range, 16-70 years) with adnexal masses, 24 were malignant and 36 were benign. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV) and accuracy for the ADNEX model were 87.50%, 91.7%, 87.50%, 91.7% and 90.0%, respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV and accuracy of the GI-RADS category were 95.8%, 61.1%, 62.2%, 95.7% and 75.0%, respectively. The diagnostic performance of the ADNEX model was better as compared to GI-RADS in terms of specificity and positive predictive value with a significant difference (p < 0.05). The area under curve (AUC) was 0.957 and 0.919 for ADNEX and GI-RADS, respectively (p = 0.252).
Conclusion: Although both ADNEX and GI-RADS systems had satisfactory diagnostic performances and high negative predictive values, the ADNEX model showed better specificity and positive predictive value in comparison with GI-RADS.
期刊介绍:
Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology of India (JOGI) is the official journal of the Federation of Obstetrics and Gynecology Societies of India (FOGSI). This is a peer- reviewed journal and features articles pertaining to the field of obstetrics and gynecology. The Journal is published six times a year on a bimonthly basis. Articles contributed by clinicians involved in patient care and research, and basic science researchers are considered. It publishes clinical and basic research of all aspects of obstetrics and gynecology, community obstetrics and family welfare and subspecialty subjects including gynecological endoscopy, infertility, oncology and ultrasonography, provided they have scientific merit and represent an important advance in knowledge. The journal believes in diversity and welcomes and encourages relevant contributions from world over. The types of articles published are: · Original Article· Case Report · Instrumentation and Techniques · Short Commentary · Correspondence (Letter to the Editor) · Pictorial Essay