Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37958313›Full record

ArticleCancers2023

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.

Camilla Panico, Silvia Bottazzi, Luca Russo, Giacomo Avesani, Veronica Celli, Luca D'Erme, Alessia Cipriani, Floriana Mascilini, Anna Fagotti, Giovanni Scambia and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cancers, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 15% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Diagnostic imaging of adnexal lesions in pregnancy: systematic review.Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Camilla PanicoDepartment of Diagnostic Imaging, Oncological Radiotherapy and Haematology, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, 00168 Rome, Italy.
Silvia BottazziDepartment of Diagnostic Imaging, Oncological Radiotherapy and Haematology, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, 00168 Rome, Italy.ORCID 0009-0003-7594-898X
Luca RussoDepartment of Diagnostic Imaging, Oncological Radiotherapy and Haematology, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, 00168 Rome, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-0495-7462
Giacomo AvesaniDepartment of Diagnostic Imaging, Oncological Radiotherapy and Haematology, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, 00168 Rome, Italy.ORCID 0000-0001-9926-760X
Veronica CelliDepartment of Diagnostic Imaging, Oncological Radiotherapy and Haematology, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, 00168 Rome, Italy.
Luca D'ErmeDepartment of Diagnostic Imaging, Oncological Radiotherapy and Haematology, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, 00168 Rome, Italy.
Alessia CiprianiDepartment of Diagnostic Imaging, Oncological Radiotherapy and Haematology, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, 00168 Rome, Italy.
Floriana MasciliniDepartment of Woman and Child Health and Public Health, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, 00168 Rome, Italy.
Anna FagottiDepartment of Woman and Child Health and Public Health, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, 00168 Rome, Italy.
Giovanni ScambiaDepartment of Woman and Child Health and Public Health, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, 00168 Rome, Italy.
Evis SalaDepartment of Diagnostic Imaging, Oncological Radiotherapy and Haematology, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, 00168 Rome, Italy.
Benedetta GuiDepartment of Diagnostic Imaging, Oncological Radiotherapy and Haematology, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, 00168 Rome, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-5130-2100
Agostino Gemelli University Polyclinic · ITUniversità Cattolica del Sacro Cuore · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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.

Indexed as

MRIovarian cancerpregnancy

Identifiers

PMID37958313
PMCPMC10648807
OpenAlexW4387936810

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.