Comparison of the diagnostic efficiency between the O-RADS US risk stratification system and doctors’ subjective judgment

Abstract

Background: This study aimed to compare the diagnostic efficiency of Ovarian-Adnexal Reporting and Data System (O-RADS) and doctors’ subjective judgment in diagnosing the malignancy risk of adnexal masses. Methods: This was an analysis of 616 adnexal masses between 2017 and 2020. The clinical findings, preoperative ultrasound images, and pathological diagnosis were recorded. Each adnexal mass was evaluated by doctors’ subjective judgment and O-RADS by two senior doctors and two junior doctors. A mass with an O-RADS grade of 1 to 3 was a benign tumor, and a mass with an O-RADS grade of 4–5 was a malignant tumor. All outcomes were compared with the pathological diagnosis. Results: Of the 616 adnexal masses, 469 (76.1%) were benign, and 147 (23.9%) were malignant. There was no difference between the area under the curve of O-RADS and the subjective judgment for junior doctors (0.83 (95% CI: 0.79–0.87) vs. 0.79 (95% CI: 0.76–0.83), p = 0.0888). The areas under the curve of O-RADS and subjective judgment were equal for senior doctors (0.86 (95% CI: 0.83–0.89) vs. 0.86 (95% CI: 0.83–0.90), p = 0.8904). O-RADS had much higher sensitivity than the subjective judgment in detecting malignant tumors for junior doctors (84.4% vs. 70.1%) and senior doctors (91.2% vs. 81.0%). In the subgroup analysis for detecting the main benign lesions of the mature cystic teratoma and ovarian endometriosic cyst, the junior doctors’ diagnostic accuracy was obviously worse than the senior doctors’ on using O-RADS. Conclusions: O-RADS had excellent performance in predicting malignant adnexal masses. It could compensate for the lack of experience of junior doctors to a certain extent. Better performance in discriminating various benign lesions should be expected with some complement.