Diagnostic performance of the O-RADS MRI system for magnetic resonance imaging in discriminating benign and malignant adnexal lesions: a systematic review, meta-analysis, and meta-regression.

IF 1.4 4区 医学 Q3 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING Diagnostic and interventional radiology Pub Date : 2024-07-08 DOI:10.4274/dir.2024.242784
Gülsüm Kılıçkap
{"title":"Diagnostic performance of the O-RADS MRI system for magnetic resonance imaging in discriminating benign and malignant adnexal lesions: a systematic review, meta-analysis, and meta-regression.","authors":"Gülsüm Kılıçkap","doi":"10.4274/dir.2024.242784","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>After the introduction of the Ovarian-Adnexal Reporting and Data System (O-RADS) for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), several studies with diverse characteristics have been published to assess its diagnostic performance. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess the diagnostic performance of O-RADS MRI scoring for adnexal masses, accounting for the risk of selection bias.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases were searched for eligible studies. Borderline or malignant lesions were considered malignant. All O-RADS MRI scores ≥4 were considered positive. The quality of the studies was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, and likelihood ratio (LR) values were calculated, considering the risk of selection bias.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Fifteen eligible studies were found, and five of them had a high risk of selection bias. Between-study heterogeneity was low-to-moderate for sensitivity but substantial for specificity (I2 values were 35.5% and 64.7%, respectively). The pooled sensitivity was significantly lower in the studies with a low risk of bias compared with those with a high risk of bias (93.0% and 97.5%, respectively; <i>P</i> = 0.043), whereas the pooled specificity was not different (90.4% for the overall population). The negative and positive LRs were 0.08 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.05–0.11] and 10.0 (95% CI 7.7–12.9), respectively, for the studies with low risk of bias and 0.03 (95% CI 0.01–0.10) and 10.3 (95% CI 3.8–28.3), respectively, for those with high risk of bias.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The overall diagnostic performance of the O-RADS system is very high, particularly for ruling out borderline/malignant lesions, but with a moderate ruling-in potential. Studies with a high risk of selection bias lead to an overestimation of sensitivity.</p><p><strong>Clinical significance: </strong>The O-RADS system demonstrates considerable diagnostic performance, particularly in ruling out borderline or malignant lesions, and should routinely be used in practice. The high between-study heterogeneity observed for specificity suggests the need for improvement in the consistent characterization of the benign lesions to reduce false positive rates.</p>","PeriodicalId":11341,"journal":{"name":"Diagnostic and interventional radiology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Diagnostic and interventional radiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4274/dir.2024.242784","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: After the introduction of the Ovarian-Adnexal Reporting and Data System (O-RADS) for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), several studies with diverse characteristics have been published to assess its diagnostic performance. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess the diagnostic performance of O-RADS MRI scoring for adnexal masses, accounting for the risk of selection bias.

Methods: The PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases were searched for eligible studies. Borderline or malignant lesions were considered malignant. All O-RADS MRI scores ≥4 were considered positive. The quality of the studies was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, and likelihood ratio (LR) values were calculated, considering the risk of selection bias.

Results: Fifteen eligible studies were found, and five of them had a high risk of selection bias. Between-study heterogeneity was low-to-moderate for sensitivity but substantial for specificity (I2 values were 35.5% and 64.7%, respectively). The pooled sensitivity was significantly lower in the studies with a low risk of bias compared with those with a high risk of bias (93.0% and 97.5%, respectively; P = 0.043), whereas the pooled specificity was not different (90.4% for the overall population). The negative and positive LRs were 0.08 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.05–0.11] and 10.0 (95% CI 7.7–12.9), respectively, for the studies with low risk of bias and 0.03 (95% CI 0.01–0.10) and 10.3 (95% CI 3.8–28.3), respectively, for those with high risk of bias.

Conclusion: The overall diagnostic performance of the O-RADS system is very high, particularly for ruling out borderline/malignant lesions, but with a moderate ruling-in potential. Studies with a high risk of selection bias lead to an overestimation of sensitivity.

Clinical significance: The O-RADS system demonstrates considerable diagnostic performance, particularly in ruling out borderline or malignant lesions, and should routinely be used in practice. The high between-study heterogeneity observed for specificity suggests the need for improvement in the consistent characterization of the benign lesions to reduce false positive rates.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
用于磁共振成像的 O-RADS MRI 系统在鉴别良性和恶性附件病变方面的诊断性能:系统综述、荟萃分析和荟萃回归。
目的:在磁共振成像(MRI)引入卵巢-附件报告和数据系统(O-RADS)后,发表了几项具有不同特点的研究来评估其诊断性能。本系统综述和荟萃分析旨在评估O-RADS磁共振成像评分对附件肿块的诊断性能,同时考虑选择偏倚的风险:方法:在 PubMed、Scopus、Web of Science 和 Cochrane 数据库中搜索符合条件的研究。边缘病变或恶性病变被视为恶性病变。所有O-RADS MRI评分≥4分的均视为阳性。研究质量采用诊断准确性研究质量评估-2(Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2)工具进行评估。考虑到选择偏倚的风险,计算了汇总的敏感性、特异性和似然比(LR)值:结果:共找到 15 项符合条件的研究,其中 5 项研究的选择偏倚风险较高。在敏感性方面,研究间的异质性为低到中等,但在特异性方面,研究间的异质性很大(I2 值分别为 35.5% 和 64.7%)。与高偏倚风险的研究相比,低偏倚风险研究的汇总灵敏度明显较低(分别为 93.0% 和 97.5%;P = 0.043),而汇总特异性则没有差异(总体为 90.4%)。低偏倚风险研究的阴性和阳性 LR 分别为 0.08 [95% 置信区间 (CI) 0.05-0.11] 和 10.0 (95% CI 7.7-12.9),高偏倚风险研究的阴性和阳性 LR 分别为 0.03 (95% CI 0.01-0.10) 和 10.3 (95% CI 3.8-28.3):O-RADS系统的总体诊断性能非常高,尤其是在排除边缘/恶性病变方面,但排除病变的可能性适中。临床意义:临床意义:O-RADS 系统具有相当高的诊断性能,尤其是在排除边缘或恶性病变方面,应在实践中常规使用。在特异性方面观察到的研究间高度异质性表明,有必要改进对良性病变的一致定性,以降低假阳性率。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Diagnostic and interventional radiology
Diagnostic and interventional radiology Medicine-Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging
自引率
4.80%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology (Diagn Interv Radiol) is the open access, online-only official publication of Turkish Society of Radiology. It is published bimonthly and the journal’s publication language is English. The journal is a medium for original articles, reviews, pictorial essays, technical notes related to all fields of diagnostic and interventional radiology.
期刊最新文献
Percutaneous nephrostomy in infants: a 20-year single-center experience Use of gelatin sponge to seal the biliary tract after percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage in patients with liver transplants. Meta-research on reporting guidelines for artificial intelligence: are authors and reviewers encouraged enough in radiology, nuclear medicine, and medical imaging journals? Cortical and subcortical structural changes in pediatric patients with infratentorial tumors. Association of body composition and systemic inflammation for patients with locally advanced cervical cancer following concurrent chemoradiotherapy
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1