Panico Camilla, Bottazzi Silvia, Russo Luca, Avesani Giacomo, Celli Veronica, D'Erme Luca, Cipriani Alessia, Mascilini Floriana, Fagotti Anna, Scambia Giovanni, Sala Evis, Gui Benedetta
Department of Diagnostic Imaging, Oncological Radiotherapy and Haematology, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, 00168 Rome, Italy.
Department of Woman and Child Health and Public Health, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, 00168 Rome, Italy.
Cancers (Basel). 2023 Oct 25;15(21):5138. doi: 10.3390/cancers15215138.
Ovarian cancer represents 7% of all cancers in pregnant women. Characterising an ovarian mass during pregnancy is essential to avoid unnecessary treatment and, if treatment is required, to plan it accordingly. Although ultrasonography (US) is the first-line modality to characterise adnexal masses, MRI is indicated when adnexal masses are indeterminate at the US examination. An MRI risk stratification system has been proposed to assign a malignancy probability based on the adnexal lesion's MRI, but features of the scoring system require the administration of intravenous gadolinium-based contrast agents, a method that might have a limited use in pregnant women. The non-contrast MRI score (NCMS) has been used and evaluated in non-pregnant women to characterise adnexal masses indeterminate at the US examination. Therefore, we evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of the NCMS in pregnant women, analysing 20 cases referred to our specialised institution. We also evaluated the diagnostic agreement between two radiologists with different expertise. The two readers classified ovarian masses as benign or malignant using both subjective assessment (SA), based on the interpretive evaluation of imaging findings derived from personal experience, and the NCMS, which includes five categories where 4 and 5 indicate a high probability of a malignant mass. The expert radiologist correctly classified 90% of the diagnoses, using both SA and the NCMS, relying on a sensitivity of 85.7% and a specificity of 92.3%, with a false positive rate of 7.7% and a false negative rate of 14.3%. The non-expert radiologist correctly identified patients at a lower rate, especially using the SA. The analysis of the inter-observer agreement showed a K = 0.47 (95% CI: 0.48-0.94) for the SA (agreement in 71.4% of cases) and a K = 0.8 (95% CI: 0.77-1.00) for the NCMS (agreement in 90% of cases). Although in pregnant patients, non-contrast MRI is used, our results support the use of a quantitative score, i.e., the NCMS, as an accurate tool. This procedure may help less experienced radiologists to reduce the rate of false negatives or positives, especially in centres not specialised in gynaecological imaging, making the MRI interpretation easier and more accurate for radiologists who are not experts in the field, either.
卵巢癌占孕妇所有癌症的7%。在孕期对卵巢肿块进行特征性诊断对于避免不必要的治疗至关重要,并且如果需要治疗,也能据此进行相应规划。尽管超声检查(US)是对附件肿块进行特征性诊断的一线方法,但当超声检查发现附件肿块不明确时,则需进行磁共振成像(MRI)检查。已有人提出一种MRI风险分层系统,可根据附件病变的MRI表现来确定恶性概率,但该评分系统的特征需要静脉注射钆基造影剂,而这种方法在孕妇中的应用可能有限。非增强MRI评分(NCMS)已在非孕妇中用于评估超声检查发现的不明确附件肿块。因此,我们通过分析转诊至我们专业机构的20例病例,评估了NCMS在孕妇中的诊断准确性。我们还评估了两位专业水平不同的放射科医生之间的诊断一致性。两位阅片者根据个人经验对影像学表现的解释性评估,通过主观评估(SA)和NCMS将卵巢肿块分为良性或恶性,NCMS包括五个类别,其中4级和5级表明肿块恶性可能性高。专家放射科医生使用SA和NCMS正确分类了90%的诊断结果,敏感性为85.7%,特异性为92.3%,假阳性率为7.7%,假阴性率为14.3%。非专家放射科医生正确识别患者的比例较低,尤其是使用SA时。观察者间一致性分析显示,SA的K值为0.47(95%CI:0.48 - 0.94)(71.4%的病例一致),NCMS的K值为0.8(95%CI:0.77 - 1.00)(90%的病例一致)。尽管在孕妇中使用的是非增强MRI,但我们的结果支持使用定量评分,即NCMS,作为一种准确的工具。这一方法可能有助于经验不足的放射科医生降低假阴性或假阳性率,尤其是在非妇科影像专业的中心,对于该领域非专家的放射科医生来说,也能使MRI解读更容易、更准确。