Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Gynecology Imaging Reporting and Data System (GI-RADS): diagnostic performance and inter-reviewer agreement

  • Ultrasound
  • Published:
European Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective

To evaluate diagnostic performance and inter-reviewer agreement (IRA) of the Gynecologic Imaging Reporting and Data System (GI-RADS) for diagnosis of adnexal masses (AMs) by pelvic ultrasound (US).

Patients and methods

A prospective multicenter study included 308 women (mean age, 41 ± 12.5 years; range, 15–73 years) with 325 AMs detected by US. All US examinations were analyzed, and AMs were categorized into five categories according to the GI-RADS classification. We used histopathology and US follow-up as the reference standards for calculating diagnostic performance of GI-RADS for detecting malignant AMs. The Fleiss kappa (κ) tests were applied to evaluate the IRA of GI-RADS scoring results for predicting malignant AMs.

Results

A total of 325 AMs were evaluated: 127 (39.1%) were malignant and 198 (60.9%) were benign. Of 95 AMs categorized as GI-RADS 2 (GR2), none was malignant; of 94 AMs categorized as GR3, three were malignant; of 13 AMs categorized as GR4, six were malignant; and of 123 AMs categorized as GR5, 118 were malignant. On a lesion-based analysis, the GI-RADS had a sensitivity, a specificity, and an accuracy of 92.9%, 97.5%, and 95.7%, respectively, when regarding only those AMs classified as GR5 for predicting malignancy. Considering combined GR4 and GR5 as a predictor for malignancy, the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of GI-RADS were 97.6%, 93.9%, and 95.4%, respectively. The IRA of the GI-RADS category was very good (κ = 0.896). The best cutoff value for predicting malignant AMs was >GR3.

Conclusions

The GI-RADS is very valuable for improving US structural reports.

Key Points

• There is still a lack of a standard in the assessment of AMs.

• GI-RADS is very valuable for improving US structural reports of AMs.

• GI-RADS criteria are easy and work at least as well as IOTA.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

AMs:

Adnexal masses

AUC :

Area under the ROC curve

BI-RADS:

Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System

CI:

Confidence interval

FIGO:

Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics

GI-RADS:

Gynecologic Imaging Reporting and Data System

IOTA:

International Ovarian Tumor Analysis

IRA:

Inter-reviewer agreement

NPV:

Negative predictive value

PPV:

Positive predictive value

ROC:

Receiver operating characteristic

TV:

Transvaginal

US:

Pelvic ultrasound

References

  1. Harris RD, Javitt MC, Glanc P et al (2013) ACR appropriateness Criteria® clinically suspected adnexal mass. Ultrasound Q 29:79–86

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Hall TR, Randall TC (2015) Adnexal masses in the premenopausal patient. Clin Obstet Gynecol 58:47–52

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Perera DS, Prabhakar HB (2015) Imaging of the adnexal mass. Clin Obstet Gynecol 58:28–46

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Brown DL, Dudiak KM, Laing FC (2010) Adnexal masses: US characterization and reporting. Radiology 254:342–354

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Timmerman D, Valentin L, Bourne TH, Collins WP, Verrelst H, Vergote I (2000) 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 16:500–505

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Levine D, Brown DL, Andreotti RF et al (2010) Management of asymptomatic ovarian and other adnexal cysts imaged at US: Society of Radiologists in Ultrasound Consensus Conference Statement. Radiology 256:943–954

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Amor F, Vaccaro H, Alcázar JL, León M, Craig JM, Martinez J (2009) Gynecologic imaging reporting and data system: a new proposal for classifying adnexal masses on the basis of sonographic findings. J Ultrasound Med 28:285–291

  8. Orozco Fernández R, Peces Rama A, Llanos Llanos MC, Martinez Mendoza A, Machado Linde F, Nieto Diaz A (2015) Clinical application of the gynecologic imaging reporting and data system (GI-RADS) for the evaluation of adnexal masses. SM J Gynecol Obstet 1:1009–1012

    Google Scholar 

  9. Amor F, Alcázar JL, Vaccaro H et al (2011) GI-RADS reporting system for ultrasound evaluation of adnexal masses in clinical practice: a prospective multicenter study. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 38:450–455

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Zhang T, Li F, Liu J, Zhang S (2017) Diagnostic performance of the Gynecology Imaging Reporting and Data System for malignant adnexal masses. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 137:325–331

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Alcazar JL, Pascual MA, Graupera B et al (2016) External validation of IOTA simple descriptors and simple rules for classifying adnexal masses. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 48:397–402

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Alcázar JL, Errasti T, Laparte C, Jurado M, López-García G (2001) Assessment of a new logistic model in the preoperative evaluation of adnexal masses. J Ultrasound Med 20:841–848

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Heintz AP, Odicino F, Maisonneuve P et al (2003) Carcinoma of the ovary. Int J Gynecol Obstet 83:135–166

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Rams N, Muñoz R, Soler C, Parra J (2015) Resultados de la clasificación Gynecologic Imaging Reporting and Data System para la catalogación de masas anexiales. Prog Obstet Ginecol 58:125–129

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Koneczny J, Czekierdowski A, Florczak M, Poziemski P, Stachowicz N, Borowski D (2017) The use of sonographic subjective tumor assessment, IOTA logistic regression model 1, IOTA Simple Rules and GI-RADS system in the preoperative prediction of malignancy in women with adnexal masses. Ginekol Pol 88:647–653

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Moszynski R, Szpurek D, Szubert S, Sajdak S (2013) Analysis of false negative results of subjective ultrasonography assessment of adnexal masses. Ginekol Pol 84:102–107

  17. Alcázar JL, Aubá M, Ruiz-Zambrana Á et al (2012) Ultrasound assessment in adnexal masses: an update. Expert Rev Obstet Gynecol 7:441–449

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Forstner R, Thomassin-Naggara I, Cunha TM et al (2017) ESUR recommendations for MR imaging of the sonographically indeterminate adnexal mass: an update. Eur Radiol 27:2248–2257

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Timmerman D (2004) The use of mathematical models to evaluate pelvic masses; can they beat an expert operator? Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 18:91–104

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Moszyński R, Zywica P, Wojtowicz A et al (2014) Menopausal status strongly influences the utility of predictive models in differential diagnosis of ovarian tumors: an external validation of selected diagnostic tools. Ginekol Pol 85:892–899

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Migda M, Bartosz M, Migda MS, Kierszk M, Katarzyna G, Maleńczyk M (2018) Diagnostic value of the gynecology imaging reporting and data system (GI-RADS) with the ovarian malignancy marker CA-125 in preoperative adnexal tumor assessment. J Ovarian Res 11:92

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Andreotti RF, Timmerman D, Benacerraf BR et al (2018) Ovarian-adnexal reporting lexicon for ultrasound: a white paper of the ACR Ovarian-Adnexal Reporting and Data System Committee. J Am Coll Radiol 5:1415–1429

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank all staff members and colleagues in Radiology department-Zagazig University for their helpful cooperation.

Funding

The authors state that this work has not received any funding.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiodiagnosis, Zagazig University, Zagazig, Egypt

    Mohammad Abd Alkhalik Basha, Elshaimaa Mohamed Mohamed, Ahmed A. El Sammak, Mohamed M. A. Zaitoun, Hitham A. Dawoud, Mai E. M. Khamis, Heba A. E. Mohamed, Ahmed Mohamed El-Maghraby, Ahmed A. El-Hamid M. Abdalla, Mostafa Mohamad Assy & Mohamad Gamal Nada

  2. Department of Radiodiagnosis, Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt

    Rania Refaat

  3. Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Zagazig University, Zagazig, Egypt

    Safaa A. Ibrahim & Nadia M. Madkour

  4. Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Al-Azhar University, Cairo, Egypt

    Awad Mahmoud Awad

  5. Department of Clinical Oncology, Zagazig University, Zagazig, Egypt

    Ahmed Ali Obaya

  6. Department of Pathology, Zagazig University, Zagazig, Egypt

    Eman H. Abdelbary

Authors
  1. Mohammad Abd Alkhalik Basha
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Rania Refaat
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Safaa A. Ibrahim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Nadia M. Madkour
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Awad Mahmoud Awad
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Elshaimaa Mohamed Mohamed
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Ahmed A. El Sammak
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Mohamed M. A. Zaitoun
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Hitham A. Dawoud
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Mai E. M. Khamis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Heba A. E. Mohamed
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Ahmed Mohamed El-Maghraby
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. Ahmed A. El-Hamid M. Abdalla
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  14. Mostafa Mohamad Assy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  15. Mohamad Gamal Nada
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  16. Ahmed Ali Obaya
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  17. Eman H. Abdelbary
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mohammad Abd Alkhalik Basha.

Ethics declarations

Guarantor

The scientific guarantor of this publication is Dr. Mohammad Abd Alkhalik Basha.

Conflict of interest

The authors of this manuscript declare no relationships with any companies whose products or services may be related to the subject matter of the article.

Ethical approval

Institutional Review Board approval was obtained.

Informed consent

Written informed consent was obtained from all patients.

Statistics and biometry

The corresponding author has great statistical expertise.

Methodology

• Prospective

• Diagnostic or prognostic study

• Multicenter study

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Basha, M.A.A., Refaat, R., Ibrahim, S.A. et al. Gynecology Imaging Reporting and Data System (GI-RADS): diagnostic performance and inter-reviewer agreement. Eur Radiol 29, 5981–5990 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-019-06181-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-019-06181-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation