Thomassin-Naggara, I., Belghitti, M., Milon, A., Abdel Wahab, C., Sadowski, E., Rockall, A. G., on behalf of EURAD study group, Poncelet, E., Jalaguier-Coudray, A., Guerra, A., Fournier, L. S., Stojanovic, S., Millet, I., Bharwani, N., Juhan, V., Cunha, T. M., Masselli, G., Balleyguier, C., Malhaire, C., and Perrot, N.
Objective: To retrospectively review the causes of categorization errors using O-RADS-MRI score and to determine the presumptive causes of these misclassifications. Methods: EURAD database was retrospectively queried to identify misclassified lesions. In this cohort, 1194 evaluable patients with 1502 pelvic masses (277 malignant / 1225 benign lesions) underwent standardized MRI to characterize adnexal masses with histology or 2 years' follow-up as a reference standard. An expert radiologist reviewed cases with two junior radiologists and lesions termed misclassified if malignant lesion was scored ≤ 3, a benign lesion was scored ≥ 4, the site of origin was incorrect, or a non-adnexal mass was incorrectly categorized as benign or malignant. Results: There were 139 / 1502 (9.2%) misclassified masses in 116 women including 109 adnexal and 30 non-adnexal masses. False-negative cases corresponded to 16 borderline or invasive malignant adnexal masses rated score ≤ 3 (16 / 139, 11.5%). False-positive cases corresponded to 88 benign masses were rated score 4 (67 / 139, 48.2%) or 5 (18 / 139,12.9%) or considered suspicious non-adnexal lesions (3 / 139, 2.2%). Misclassifications were only due to origin error in 12 adnexal masses (8 benign, 4 malignant) (8.6%, 12 / 139) and 23 non-adnexal masses (18 benign, 5 malignant,16.5%, 23 / 139) perceived respectively as non-adnexal and adnexal masses. Interpretive error (n = 104), failure to recognize technical insufficient exams (n = 9), and perceptual errors (n = 4) were found. Most interpretive was due to misinterpretation of solid tissue or incorrect assignment of mass origin. Eighty-four out of 139 cases were correctly reclassified by the readers with strict adherence to the score rules. Conclusion: Most errors were due to misinterpretation of solid tissue or incorrect assignment of mass origin. Key Points: • Prospective assignment of O-RADS-MRI score resulted in misclassification of 9.25% of sonographically indeterminate pelvic masses. • Most errors were interpretive (74.8%) due to misinterpretation of solid tissue as defined by the lexicon or incorrect assignment of mass origin. • Pelvic inflammatory disease is a common source of misclassification (8.9%) (12 / 139). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]