Share this content in WeChat
Application interpretation and research progress of ADNEX MR scoring system for ovarian tumors
ZHU Huadong  CUI Lei  YIN Honggang  LU Xian  ZHANG Qin 

Cite this article as: ZHU H D, CUI L, YIN H G, et al. Application interpretation and research progress of ADNEX MR scoring system for ovarian tumors[J]. Chin J Magn Reson Imaging, 2023, 14(6): 182-186, 202. DOI:10.12015/issn.1674-8034.2023.06.033.

[Abstract] Early diagnosis of ovarian tumors is essential. Ultrasonography is the imaging method of choice, with high sensitivity (Sens) and specificity (Spec), but 20% of tumors cannot identify benign or malignant. MRI has been adopted as a non-surgical criterion for the diagnosis of benign and malignant ovarian tumors. The Assessment of Different NEoplasias in the AdneXa (ADNEX) MR scoring system can better risk assessment and stratification of tumors, which is of great significance for early and accurate detection of tumors, determination of tumor subtypes, determination of treatment modalities, and improvement of survival rates. In view of this, this article will describe the scanning technology, scoring rules and clinical corresponding treatment methods of ADNEX MR scoring system, and review its application status and related research progress, so that clinicians can better understand and apply it.
[Keywords] adnexal mass;ovarian cancer;diagnosis;scoring system;preoperative assessment;risk assessment;interpretation;magnetic resonance imaging

ZHU Huadong1   CUI Lei2*   YIN Honggang1   LU Xian1   ZHANG Qin1  

1 Department of Imaging, Nantong Maternal and Child Health Hospital Affiliated to Nantong University, Nantong 226018, China

2 Department of Imaging, Nantong First People's Hospital, Second Affiliated Hospital of Nantong University, Nantong 226018, China

Corresponding author: Cui L, E-mail:

Conflicts of interest   None.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Nantong Science and Technology Program Guiding Project (No. MSZ19002).
Received  2022-05-23
Accepted  2023-06-08
DOI: 10.12015/issn.1674-8034.2023.06.033
Cite this article as: ZHU H D, CUI L, YIN H G, et al. Application interpretation and research progress of ADNEX MR scoring system for ovarian tumors[J]. Chin J Magn Reson Imaging, 2023, 14(6): 182-186, 202. DOI:10.12015/issn.1674-8034.2023.06.033.

HIETT A K, SONEK J D, GUY M, et al. Performance of IOTA Simple Rules, Simple Rules risk assessment, ADNEX model and O-RADS in differentiating between benign and malignant adnexal lesions in North American women[J]. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol, 2022, 59(5): 668-676. DOI: 10.1002/uog.24777.
TAYLOR E C, IRSHAID L, MATHUR M. Multimodality imaging approach to ovarian neoplasms with pathologic correlation[J]. Radiographics, 2021, 41(1): 289-315. DOI: 10.1148/rg.2021200086.
RAO S, SMITH D A, GULER E, et al. Past, present, and future of serum tumor markers in management of ovarian cancer: a guide for the radiologist[J]. Radiographics, 2021, 41(6): 1839-1856. DOI: 10.1148/rg.2021210005.
ANDREOTTI R F, TIMMERMAN D, STRACHOWSKI L M, et al. O-RADS US risk stratification and management system: a consensus guideline from the ACR ovarian-adnexal reporting and data system committee[J]. Radiology, 2020, 294(1): 168-185. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2019191150.
SADOWSKI E A, ROBBINS J B, ROCKALL A G, et al. A systematic approach to adnexal masses discovered on ultrasound: the ADNEx MR scoring system[J]. Abdom Radiol (NY), 2018, 43(3): 679-695. DOI: 10.1007/s00261-017-1272-7.
HUCHON C, BOURDEL N, ABDEL WAHAB C, et al. Borderline ovarian tumors: French guidelines from the CNGOF. Part 1. Epidemiology, biopathology, imaging and biomarkers[J/OL]. J Gynecol Obstet Hum Reprod, 2021, 50(1): 101965 [2022-04-20]. DOI: 10.1016/j.jogoh.2020.101965.
SADOWSKI E A, ROCKALL A G, MATUREN K E, et al. Adnexal lesions: imaging strategies for ultrasound and MR imaging[J]. Diagn Interv Imaging, 2019, 100(10): 635-646. DOI: 10.1016/j.diii.2018.06.003.
BERNARDIN L, DILKS P, LIYANAGE S, et al. Effectiveness of semi-quantitative multiphase dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI as a predictor of malignancy in complex adnexal masses: radiological and pathological correlation[J]. Eur Radiol, 2012, 22(4): 880-890. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-011-2331-z.
KAIJSER J, VANDECAVEYE V, DEROOSE C M, et al. Imaging techniques for the pre-surgical diagnosis of adnexal tumours[J]. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol, 2014, 28(5): 683-695. DOI: 10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2014.03.013.
RUIZ M, LABAUGE P, LOUBOUTIN A, et al. External validation of the MR imaging scoring system for the management of adnexal masses[J]. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol, 2016, 205: 115-119. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2016.07.493.
VÁZQUEZ-MANJARREZ S E, RICO-RODRIGUEZ O C, GUZMAN-MARTINEZ N, et al. Imaging and diagnostic approach of the adnexal mass: what the oncologist should know[J/OL]. Chin Clin Oncol, 2020, 9(5): 69 [2022-04-20]. DOI: 10.21037/cco-20-37.
THOMASSIN-NAGGARA I, PONCELET E, JALAGUIER-COUDRAY A, et al. Ovarian-adnexal reporting data system magnetic resonance imaging (O-RADS MRI) score for risk stratification of sonographically indeterminate adnexal masses[J/OL]. JAMA Netw Open, 2020, 3(1): e1919896 [2022-04-21]. DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.19896.
CUI L, XU H Y, ZHANG Y F, et al. Diagnostic accuracies of the ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging ADNEX scoring systems for ovarian adnexal mass: systematic review and meta-analysis[J]. Acad Radiol, 2022, 29(6): 897-908. DOI: 10.1016/j.acra.2021.05.029.
SADOWSKI E A, THOMASSIN-NAGGARA I, ROCKALL A, et al. O-RADS MRI risk stratification system: guide for assessing adnexal lesions from the ACR O-RADS committee[J]. Radiology, 2022, 303(1): 35-47. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.204371.
THOMASSIN-NAGGARA I, AUBERT E, ROCKALL A, et al. Adnexal masses: development and preliminary validation of an MR imaging scoring system[J]. Radiology, 2013, 267(2): 432-443. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.13121161.
BASHA M A A, ABDELRAHMAN H M, METWALLY M I, et al. Validity and reproducibility of the ADNEX MR scoring system in the diagnosis of sonographically indeterminate adnexal masses[J]. J Magn Reson Imaging, 2021, 53(1): 292-304. DOI: 10.1002/jmri.27285.
SAKALA M D, SHAMPAIN K L, WASNIK A P. Advances in MR imaging of the female pelvis[J]. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am, 2020, 28(3): 415-431. DOI: 10.1016/j.mric.2020.03.007.
GUERRA A, CUNHA T M, FÉLIX A. Magnetic resonance evaluation of adnexal masses[J]. Acta Radiol Stock Swed, 2008, 49(6): 700-709. DOI: 10.1080/02841850802064995.
SASAGURI K, YAMAGUCHI K, NAKAZONO T, et al. External validation of ADNEX MR SCORING system: a single-centre retrospective study[J]. Clin Radiol, 2019, 74(2): 131-139. DOI: 10.1016/j.crad.2018.10.014.
FUJII S, MATSUSUE E, KANASAKI Y, et al. Detection of peritoneal dissemination in gynecological malignancy: evaluation by diffusion-weighted MR imaging[J]. Eur Radiol, 2008, 18(1): 18-23. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-007-0732-9.
SALA E, ROCKALL A, RANGARAJAN D, et al. The role of dynamic contrast-enhanced and diffusion weighted magnetic resonance imaging in the female pelvis[J]. Eur J Radiol, 2010, 76(3): 367-385. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2010.01.026.
BAKIR B, BAKAN S, TUNACI M, et al. Diffusion-weighted imaging of solid or predominantly solid gynaecological adnexial masses: is it useful in the differential diagnosis?[J]. Br J Radiol, 2011, 84(1003): 600-611. DOI: 10.1259/bjr/90706205.
PATEL R K, GARG A, DIXIT R, et al. The role of "penumbra sign" and diffusion-weighted imaging in adnexal masses: do they provide a clue in differentiating tubo-ovarian abscess from ovarian malignancy?[J]. Pol J Radiol, 2021, 86: e661-e671 [2022-04-21]. DOI: 10.5114/pjr.2021.111986.
DIMOVA J, ZLATAREVA D, BAKALOVA R, et al. Adnexal masses characterized on 3 tesla magnetic resonance imaging-added value of diffusion techniques[J]. Radiol Oncol, 2020, 54(4): 419-428. DOI: 10.2478/raon-2020-0061.
MA L Y, SUN M Y. The diagnostic application of MR imaging for differentiating the histological types of epithelial ovarian carcinoma[J]. Int J Med Radiol, 2022, 45(1): 89-93. DOI: 10.19300/j.2022.Z19176.
MALEK M, OGHABIAN Z, TABIBIAN E, et al. Comparison of qualitative (time intensity curve analysis), semi-quantitative, and quantitative multi-phase 3T DCEMRI parameters as predictors of malignancy in adnexal[J]. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, 2019, 20(6): 1603-1611. DOI: 10.31557/APJCP.2019.20.6.1603.
REINHOLD C, ROCKALL A, SADOWSKI E A, et al. Ovarian-adnexal reporting lexicon for MRI: a white paper of the ACR ovarian-adnexal reporting and data systems MRI committee[J]. J Am Coll Radiol, 2021, 18(5): 713-729. DOI: 10.1016/j.jacr.2020.12.022.
SAHIN H, PANICO C, URSPRUNG S, et al. Non-contrast MRI can accurately characterize adnexal masses: a retrospective study[J]. Eur Radiol, 2021, 31(9): 6962-6973. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-021-07737-9.
THOMASSIN-NAGGARA I, DARAÏ E, CUENOD C A, et al. Contribution of diffusion-weighted MR imaging for predicting benignity of complex adnexal masses[J]. Eur Radiol, 2009, 19(6): 1544-1552. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-009-1299-4.
HO L. FDG-PET/CT Imaging of Ovarian Cancer[M]//SABA L, ACHARYA U, GUERRIERO S, et al. Ovarian Neoplasm Imaging. Boston, MA: Springer, 2013: 441-463. DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4614-8633-6_28.
KHATI N J, KIM T, RIESS J. Imaging of benign adnexal disease[J]. Radiol Clin N Am, 2020, 58(2): 257-273. DOI: 10.1016/j.rcl.2019.10.009.
PEREIRA P N, SARIAN L O, YOSHIDA A, et al. Improving the performance of IOTA simple rules: sonographic assessment of adnexal masses with resource-effective use of a magnetic resonance scoring (ADNEX MR scoring system)[J]. Abdom Radiol (NY), 2020, 45(10): 3218-3229. DOI: 10.1007/s00261-019-02207-9.
CORWIN M T, GERSCOVICH E O, LAMBA R, et al. Differentiation of ovarian endometriomas from hemorrhagic cysts at MR imaging: utility of the T2 dark spot sign[J]. Radiology, 2014, 271(1): 126-132. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.13131394.
FATHI KAZEROONI A, NABIL M, HAGHIGHAT KHAH H, et al. ADC-derived spatial features can accurately classify adnexal lesions[J]. J Magn Reson Imaging, 2018, 47(4): 1061-1071. DOI: 10.1002/jmri.25854.
LIN D I, KILLIAN J K, VENSTROM J M, et al. Recurrent urothelial carcinoma-like FGFR3 genomic alterations in malignant Brenner tumors of the ovary[J]. Mod Pathol, 2021, 34(5): 983-993. DOI: 10.1038/s41379-020-00699-1.
FRIEDRICH L, MEYER R, LEVIN G. Management of adnexal mass: a comparison of five national guidelines[J]. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol, 2021, 265: 80-89. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2021.08.020.
STEIN E B, ROSELAND M E, SHAMPAIN K L, et al. Contemporary guidelines for adnexal mass imaging: a 2020 update[J]. Abdom Radiol (NY), 2021, 46(5): 2127-2139. DOI: 10.1007/s00261-020-02812-z.
FORSTNER R, MEISSNITZER M, CUNHA T M. Update on imaging of ovarian cancer[J/OL]. Curr Radiol Rep, 2016, 4(6): 31 [2022-04-21]. DOI: 10.1007/s40134-016-0157-9.
KAGA T, KATO H, HATANO Y, et al. Can MRI features differentiate ovarian mucinous carcinoma from mucinous borderline tumor?[J/OL]. Eur J Radiol, 2020, 132: 109281 [2022-04-21]. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2020.109281.
PEREIRA P N, SARIAN L O, YOSHIDA A, et al. Accuracy of the ADNEX MR scoring system based on a simplified MRI protocol for the assessment of adnexal masses[J]. Diagn Interv Radiol, 2018, 24(2): 63-71. DOI: 10.5152/dir.2018.17378.
LI G J, WEN P, HUANG L X, et al. Application value of ADNEX MR scoring system in the diagnosis of sonographically indeterminate adnexal masses[J]. Mil Med J South China, 2022, 36(11): 879-883. DOI: 10.13730/j.issn.1009-2595.2022.11.007.
HOTTAT N A, VAN PACHTERBEKE C, VANDEN HOUTE K, et al. Magnetic resonance scoring system for assessment of adnexal masses: added value of diffusion-weighted imaging including apparent diffusion coefficient map[J]. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol, 2021, 57(3): 478-487. DOI: 10.1002/uog.22090.
SADOWSKI E A, MATUREN K E, ROCKALL A, et al. Ovary: mri characterisation and o-rads mri[J/OL]. Br J Radiol, 2021, 94(1125): 20210157 [2022-04-21]. DOI: 10.1259/bjr.20210157.
WENGERT G J, DABI Y, KERMARREC E, et al. O-RADS MRI classification of indeterminate adnexal lesions: time-intensity curve analysis is better than visual assessment[J/OL]. Radiology, 2022, 303(2): E28 [2023-04-21].
GITY M, PARVIZ S, SALIGHEH RAD H, et al. Differentiation of benign from malignant adnexal masses by dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI (DCE-MRI): quantitative and semi-quantitative analysis at 3-tesla MRI[J]. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, 2019, 20(4): 1073-1079. DOI: 10.31557/APJCP.2019.20.4.1073.
GUO Y M, HUANG Y H, WEI X H, et al. Semi-quantitative and quantitative parametric analysis of 3.0 T dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging in diagnosing tumors of ovary[J]. Chin J Magn Reson Imaging, 2015, 6(10):782-786. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1674-8034.2015.10.013.
BAMIAS A, SOTIROPOULOU M, ZAGOURI F, et al. Prognostic evaluation of tumour type and other histopathological characteristics in advanced epithelial ovarian cancer, treated with surgery and paclitaxel/carboplatin chemotherapy: cell type is the most useful prognostic factor[J]. Eur J Cancer, 2012, 48(10): 1476-1483. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejca.2011.09.023.
TÜRKOĞLU S, KAYAN M. Differentiation between benign and malignant ovarian masses using multiparametric MRI[J]. Diagn Interv Imaging, 2020, 101(3): 147-155. DOI: 10.1016/j.diii.2020.01.006.
AKAZAWA M, HASHIMOTO K. Artificial intelligence in gynecologic cancers: current status and future challenges-A systematic review[J/OL]. Artif Intell Med, 2021, 120: 102164 [2022-04-21]. DOI: 10.1016/j.artmed.2021.102164.
MYSONA D P, KAPP D S, ROHATGI A, et al. Applying artificial intelligence to gynecologic oncology: a review[J]. Obstet Gynecol Surv, 2021, 76(5): 292-301. DOI: 10.1097/OGX.0000000000000902.

PREV Radiomics predicts the heterogeneity and prognosis of high-grade serous ovarian cancer
NEXT Research progress of MRI on brain in patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy

Tel & Fax: +8610-67113815    E-mail: