Interobserver agreement between eight observers using IOTA simple rules and O-RADS lexicon descriptors for adnexal masses

Abstract

PurposeTo evaluate interobserver agreement in assigning imaging features and classifying adnexal masses using the IOTA simple rules versus O-RADS lexicon and identify causes of discrepancy.MethodsPelvic ultrasound (US) examinations in 114 women with 118 adnexal masses were evaluated by eight radiologists blinded to the final diagnosis (4 attendings and 4 fellows) using IOTA simple rules and O-RADS lexicon. Each feature category was analyzed for interobserver agreement using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) for ordinal variables and free marginal kappa for nominal variables. The two-tailed significance level (a) was set at 0.05.ResultsFor IOTA simple rules, interobserver agreement was almost perfect for three malignant lesion categories (M2-4) and substantial for the remaining two (M1, M5) with k-values of 0.80–0.82 and 0.68–0.69, respectively. Interobserver agreement was almost perfect for two benign feature categories (B2, B3), substantial for two (B4, B5) and moderate for one (B1) with k-values of 0.81–0.90, 0.69–0.70 and 0.60, respectively. For O-RADS, interobserver agreement was almost perfect for two out of ten feature categories (ascites and peritoneal nodules) with k-values of 0.89 and 0.97. Interobserver agreement ranged from fair to substantial for the remaining eight feature categories with k-values of 0.39–0.61. Fellows and attendings had ICC values of 0.725 and 0.517, respectively.ConclusionO-RADS had variable interobserver agreement with overall good agreement. IOTA simple rules had more uniform interobserver agreement with overall excellent agreement. Greater reader experience did not improve interobserver agreement with O-RADS.Graphical abstract