Article Text

Download PDFPDF

2022-RA-1400-ESGO GI-RADS versus O-RADS as classification reporting system for adnexal masses. A prospective comparative study
  1. Julio Vara1,
  2. Isabel Brotóns2,
  3. Ana López-Picazo2,
  4. Celia Paredes3,
  5. Isabel María Aguilar4,
  6. Juan González Canales2,
  7. Patricia Forcada5,
  8. Alba Etxeandia2,
  9. Lucía Pérez Alonso6,
  10. Isabel Carriles6,
  11. Tania Errasti2,
  12. Begoña Olartecoechea2,
  13. Stefano Guerriero7,
  14. Álvaro Ruiz Zambrana2,
  15. M Angela Pascual8,
  16. Luis M Chiva6 and
  17. Juan Luis Alcázar2
  1. 1Obstetrics And Gynaecology, Clínica Universidad de Navarra, Pamplona, Spain
  2. 2Clínica Universidad de Navarra, Pamplona, Spain
  3. 3Complejo Hospitalario Universitario de Badajoz, Badajoz, Spain
  4. 4Hospital Universitario de Valme, Sevilla, Spain
  5. 5Hospital General Universitario de Castellón, Castellón, Spain
  6. 6Clínica Universidad de Navarra, Madrid, Spain
  7. 7University of Cagliari, Cagliari, Italy
  8. 8Institut Universitari Dexeus, Barcelona, Spain


Introduction/Background To compare GI-RADS and O-RADS reporting systems for managing adnexal masses.

Methodology Single center prospective study comprising a non-consecutive series of women diagnosing as having an adnexal mass evaluated and treated at our institution between January 2019 and December 2020. All women underwent transvaginal/transabdominal ultrasound examination. Pregnant women and girls under 18 years were not included. Adnexal masses were classified using GI-RADS system (based on subjective impression of the examiner). Management (follow-up, surgery by general gynecologist, MRI as second step technique or referral to Gynecologic oncologist) was based on this system. Additionally, O-RADS classification based on ADNEX model malignancy risk estimation (not using CA-125) was estimated. Diagnostic performance of both systems (considering GI-RADS or O-RADS 4 and 5 as malignant) were assessed and compared. Reference standard was or follow-up (masses with > 12 months and no signs of malignancy were considered as benign)

Results One hundred and ninety-eight women (240 masses) were included in the study. GI-RADS classifications of the masses were as follows: GI-RADS-2: 20, GI-RADS 3: 178, GI-RADS-4: 25 and GI-RADS- 5: 17. According to O-RADS, masses had been classified as follows: O-RADS-2: 28, O-RADS 3: 173, O- RADS-4: 25 and O-RADS-5: 14. 136 masses were managed conservatively and 104 were removed surgically. No mass on follow-up turned to be an ovarian cancer. Reference standard was benign in 217 masses and malignant in 23 masses. Diagnostic performance of both systems is shown in table.

Abstract 2022-RA-1400-ESGO Table 1

Diagnostic performance of GI-RADS and O-RADS

Conclusion GI-RADS or O-RADS systems perform similarly for managing adnexal masses

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.