Prediction of the Risk of Malignancy of Adnexal Masses during Pregnancy Comparing Subjective Assessment and Non-Contrast MRI Score (NCMS) in Radiologists with Different Expertise

Abstract

Ovarian cancer represents 7% of all cancers in pregnant women. Characterising an ovarian mass during pregnancy is essential to avoid unnecessary treatment and, if treatment is required, to plan it accordingly. Although ultrasonography (US) is the first-line modality to characterise adnexal masses, MRI is indicated when adnexal masses are indeterminate at the US examination. An MRI risk stratification system has been proposed to assign a malignancy probability based on the adnexal lesion’s MRI, but features of the scoring system require the administration of intravenous gadolinium-based contrast agents, a method that might have a limited use in pregnant women. The non-contrast MRI score (NCMS) has been used and evaluated in non-pregnant women to characterise adnexal masses indeterminate at the US examination. Therefore, we evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of the NCMS in pregnant women, analysing 20 cases referred to our specialised institution. We also evaluated the diagnostic agreement between two radiologists with different expertise. The two readers classified ovarian masses as benign or malignant using both subjective assessment (SA), based on the interpretive evaluation of imaging findings derived from personal experience, and the NCMS, which includes five categories where 4 and 5 indicate a high probability of a malignant mass. The expert radiologist correctly classified 90% of the diagnoses, using both SA and the NCMS, relying on a sensitivity of 85.7% and a specificity of 92.3%, with a false positive rate of 7.7% and a false negative rate of 14.3%. The non-expert radiologist correctly identified patients at a lower rate, especially using the SA. The analysis of the inter-observer agreement showed a K = 0.47 (95% CI: 0.48–0.94) for the SA (agreement in 71.4% of cases) and a K = 0.8 (95% CI: 0.77–1.00) for the NCMS (agreement in 90% of cases). Although in pregnant patients, non-contrast MRI is used, our results support the use of a quantitative score, i.e., the NCMS, as an accurate tool. This procedure may help less experienced radiologists to reduce the rate of false negatives or positives, especially in centres not specialised in gynaecological imaging, making the MRI interpretation easier and more accurate for radiologists who are not experts in the field, either.