Cited by 98Ovarian cancer diagnosis and treatmentBreast Lesions and CarcinomasMRI in cancer diagnosis

The DOI matches its Crossref record; the references it cites are not checked yet.

Gynecologic Imaging Reporting and Data System: A New Proposal for Classifying Adnexal Masses on the Basis of Sonographic Findings

Amor, Fernando, Vaccaro, Humberto, Alcázar, Juan Luis, León, Mauricio, Craig, José Manuel, Martinez, Jaime·2009·Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to describe a new reporting system called the Gynecologic Imaging Reporting and Data System (GI-RADS) for reporting findings in adnexal masses based on transvaginal sonography. METHODS: A total of 171 women (mean age, 39 years; range, 16-77 years) suspected of having an adnexal mass were evaluated by transvaginal sonography before treatment. Pattern recognition analysis and color Doppler blood flow location were used for determining the presumptive diagnosis. Then the GI-RADS was used, with the following classifications: GI-RADS 1, definitively benign; GI-RADS 2, very probably benign; GI-RADS 3, probably benign; GI-RADS 4, probably malignant; and GI-RADS 5, very probably malignant. Patients with GI-RADS 1 and 2 tumors were treated expectantly. All GI-RADS 3, 4, and 5 tumors were removed surgically, and a definitive histologic diagnosis was obtained. The GI-RADS classification was compared with final histologic diagnosis. RESULTS: A total of 187 masses were evaluated. The prevalence rate for malignant tumors was 13.4%. Overall GI-RADS classification rates were as follows: GI-RADS 1, 4 cases (2.1%); GI-RADS 2, 52 cases (27.8%); GI-RADS 3, 90 cases (48.1%); GI-RADS 4, 13 cases (7%); and GI-RADS 5, 28 cases (15%). The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and accuracy were 92%, 97%, 85%, 99%, and 96%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Our proposed reporting system showed good diagnostic performance. It is simple and could facilitate communication between sonographers/sonologists and clinicians.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.7863/jum.2009.28.3.285

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 28 · Cited by 98

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. 1996, Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol, 8, 210
  2. 1991, Obstet Gynecol, 78, 70

Metadata

Authors
Amor, F., Vaccaro, H., Alcázar, J. L., León, M., Craig, J. M., & Martinez, J.
Affiliations
  • Clinica Universidad de Navarra (ES)
  • Clínica Dávila (CL)
Corresponding author
Alcázar, Juan Luis
Venue
Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2009-03
Volume
28
Issue
3
Pages
285-291
ISSN
0278-4297 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2140420547
Cited by
98
References
28
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 2
FWCI
1.57
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Ovarian cancer diagnosis and treatment
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pathology and Forensic Medicine › Breast Lesions and Carcinomas
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › MRI in cancer diagnosis
Keywords
adnexal mass, transvaginal ultrasound, ovarian tumor classification, color Doppler blood flow, pattern recognition, diagnostic accuracy, benign versus malignant differentiation, histopathological correlation
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Artificial Intelligence, Database Management Systems, Female, Gynecology, Humans, Image Enhancement, Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted, Middle Aged, Ovarian Neoplasms, Pattern Recognition, Automated, Radiology Information Systems, Sensitivity and Specificity, Ultrasonography, Reproducibility of Results, Information Storage and Retrieval, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review