CHARACTERISTICS OF OVARIAN MASSES AND DIAGNOSTIC PERFORMANCE ON ULTRASOUND USING O-RADS SYSTEM AT HANOI OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY HOSPITAL IN 2023-2024
Main Article Content
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate sonographic characteristics of ovarian masses and the diagnostic performance of the O-RADS ultrasound lexicon at Hanoi Obstetrics and Gynecology Hospital (2023–2024).
Methods: Retrospective cross-sectional study including 384 patients with 420 surgically removed ovarian masses and histopathologic diagnosis. All masses were assigned O-RADS categories based on ultrasound reports. Diagnostic metrics (sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, accuracy) were calculated for different O-RADS thresholds using histopathology as the reference standard.
Results: Mean patient age was 33.7 ± 10.8 years; >64% were under 40 years. Of 420 masses, 396 (94.4%) were benign, 10 (2.3%) borderline, and 14 (3.3%) malignant. Most masses were classified as O-RADS 2–3 (93.1%); O-RADS 4: 4.8%; O-RADS 5: 2.1%. Using O-RADS ≥3 yielded 100% sensitivity and 100% NPV but low specificity and PPV. O-RADS ≥4 provided a balanced performance (sensitivity ≈75.0%, specificity ≈97.2%, PPV 62.1%, NPV 98.5%). O-RADS 5 had very high specificity (~99.7%) and PPV but low sensitivity (~33.3%). O-RADS ≥ 4 also reduce the frequency of false positive by about 9 times compared to O-RADS ≥ 3 (11 compared to 100)
Conclusions: O-RADS ultrasound is a valid and reliable stratification tool in our center. An O-RADS threshold of 4 offers the best trade-off between diagnostic accuracy and clinical relevance for guiding management decisions.
Article Details
Keywords
ovarian tumor, ultrasound, orads, sensitivity, specificity
References
2. Torre LA, Trabert B, DeSantis CE, Miller KD, Samimi G, Runowicz CD, et al. Ovarian cancer statistics, 2018. CA Cancer J Clin. 2018;68:284–96. https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21456
3. Andreotti RF, Timmerman D, Strachowski LM, Froyman W, Benacerraf BR, Bennett GL, et al. O-RADS US Risk Stratification and Management System: A Consensus Guideline from the ACR Ovarian-Adnexal Reporting and Data System Committee. Radiology [Internet]. Radiological Society of North America; 2019 [cited 2025 Oct 29]; https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2019191150
4. Timmerman S, Valentin L, Ceusters J, Testa AC, Landolfo C, Sladkevicius P, et al. External Validation of the Ovarian-Adnexal Reporting and Data System (O-RADS) Lexicon and the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis 2-Step Strategy to Stratify Ovarian Tumors Into O-RADS Risk Groups. JAMA Oncol. 2023;9:225–33. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaoncol.2022.5969
5. Thảo* ĐTP, Loan* NTK, Cẩm** LH. GIÁ TRỊ CỦA SIÊU ÂM IOTA THEO QUY TẮC ĐƠN GIẢN TRONG CHẨN ĐOÁN UNG THƯ BUỒNG TRỨNG TẠI BỆNH VIỆN TỪ DŨ. Tạp Chí Học Thành Phố Hồ Chí Minh. Đại học Y Dược Thành Phố Hồ Chí Minh; 2019;23:214–214.
6. Timmerman D, Testa AC, Bourne T, Ameye L, Jurkovic D, Van Holsbeke C, et al. Simple ultrasound-based rules for the diagnosis of ovarian cancer. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol Off J Int Soc Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2008;31:681–90. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.5365
7. Su N, Yang Y, Liu Z, Gao L, Dai Q, Li J, et al. Validation of the diagnostic efficacy of O-RADS in adnexal masses. Sci Rep. 2023;13:15667. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-42836-1
8. Vara J, Manzour N, Chacón E, López-Picazo A, Linares M, Pascual MÁ, et al. Ovarian Adnexal Reporting Data System (O-RADS) for Classifying Adnexal Masses: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Cancers. 2022;14:3151. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers14133151
9. Kılıçkap G. 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. Diagn Interv Radiol. 2025;31:171. https://doi.org/10.4274/dir.2024.242784
10. Trân TM, Lợi HM, Thảo NT. Nghiên cứu giá trị của cộng hưởng từ trong chẩn đoán khối u buồng trứng theo phân loại O-RADS 2022. Tạp Chí Dược Huế. 2024;14:131–131. https://doi.org/10.34071/jmp.2024.5.17