REVIEW THE O-RADS CLASSIFICATION OF ULTRASOUND TO DIAGNOSE OVARIAN MASSES AT HANOI OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY HOSPITAL

Thị Thúy Hằng Tạ, Thị Anh Đào Lê

Main Article Content

Abstract

Objective: To describe ovarian ultrasound images of the O-RADS classification and their associations with pathology results to evaluate the predictive ability of the O-RADS classification in diagnosing ovarian tumors. Methods: retrospective cross-sectional descriptive study of 384 ovarian ultrasound images in 336 women examined and treated for ovarian tumors at Hanoi Obstetrics and Gynecology Hospital from August 2022. Results: The average age of patients in the study was 36.3 ± 11.94 years old with 36.9% aged 40 years and older; O-RADS 2 classification was 66.92%; O-RADS 3 was 23.7% and O-RADS 5 was 3.39%. Multilocular images were 21.09%; solid lesions were 3.91%; increased sounds were 57.29%; tumor diameter≥10cm were15.89%; 1.56% ≥ 4 cysts and 0.25% was fluid. The main malignancies are endometrial adenocarcinoma with 1.82%; serous carcinomas were 1.56%. In the O-RADS 5 classification, 46.15% have cancer classified as stage 3; and 7.69% border. O-RADS classification 4 is present in 20% of stage 1 cancers; 20% in stage 3 with p < 0.05. Conclusion: The predictive value of benign and malignant tumors of the O-RADS classification is quite high: patients with O-RADS classifications 1, 2, 3 are often benign, O-RADS classification 5 has good results. pathology of malignant or borderline tumor.

Article Details

References

Michael G Muto M. Approach to the patient with an adnexal mass. Updates - https://wwwuptodatecom/contents/approach-to-the-patient-with-an-adnexal-mass. 2023.
2. Moro F, Esposito R, Landolfo C, et al. Ultrasound evaluation of ovarian masses and assessment of the extension of ovarian malignancy. Br J Radiol. 2021; 94(1125): 20201375.
3. Timmerman D, Valentin L, Bourne T, et al. Terms, definitions and measurements to describe the sonographic features of adnexal tumors: a consensus opinion from the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis (IOTA) Group. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2000;16(5):500-505.
4. Timmerman D, Testa AC, Bourne T, et al. Simple ultrasound‐based rules for the diagnosis of ovarian cancer. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2008;31(6):681-690.
5. Andreotti RF, Timmerman D, Strachowski LM, et al. O-RADS US risk stratification and management system: a consensus guideline from the ACR Ovarian-Adnexal Reporting and Data System Committee. Radiology. 2020;294(1):168-185.
6. Su N, Yang Y, Liu Z, et al. Validation of the diagnostic efficacy of O-RADS in adnexal masses. Scientific Reports. 2023;13(1):15667.
7. Vara J, Manzour N, Chacon E, et al. Ovarian Adnexal Reporting Data System (O-RADS) for Classifying Adnexal Masses: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Cancers (Basel). 2022;14(13).
8. Moro F, Baima Poma C, Zannoni GF, et al. Imaging in gynecological disease (12): clinical and ultrasound features of invasive and non‐invasive malignant serous ovarian tumors. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2017;50(6):788-799.
9. Wang M, Liu K. Advances in fertility preserving surgery for borderline ovarian tumors. European Journal of Obstetrics Gynecology Reproductive Biology. 2022;270:206-211.