Abstract :

Background and Objective: The Gynecology Reporting and Data System (GI-RADS) is a standardized framework designed to improve adnexal mass characterization and streamline clinician-radiologist communication. By utilizing morphological features and Doppler vascularity, GI-RADS reduce subjectivity in ultrasound interpretation. This study evaluated its diagnostic performance in predicting malignancy risk and providing clear clinical pathways for patient management.

Methodology: A clinical study was conducted at Al-Auda Medical Center, Saudi Arabia, The study included 300 female patients (ages 17+) undergoing ultrasound evaluation for adnexal lesions. Data were analyzed using SPSS version 20.

Results: The mean age was 35.7±10.3 years. Masses were most prevalent in premenopausal married women aged 26–45 (58%), with pelvic pain as the primary indicator (61.3%). Analysis showed 85% of masses had regular capsules and 93.7% were well-defined. Septation occurred in 13.3%, while posterior shadowing and vascularization were noted in 40.3% and 25.7%, respectively. A strong significant correlation (P=0.000) was found between GI-RADS grades and sonographic parameters. Simple ovarian cysts were the most frequent diagnosis (25%), while malignant outcomes were minimal (1.3%). Distribution showed GI-RADS 3 was most frequent (51.7%), followed by GI-RADS 2 (36.3%), GI-RADS 4 (8%), GI-RADS 5 (2%), and GI-RADS 1 (2%).

Conclusion: GI-RADS is a reliable tool for preoperative assessment, effectively distinguishing benign (GI-RADS 2/3) from suspicious (GI-RADS 4/5) lesions. Implementing this standardized language enhances diagnostic accuracy and optimizes surgical management. The researcher recommends mandatory inclusion of GI-RADS scores in all pelvic ultrasound reports to guide clinical decision-making.

---

Keywords :

Adnexal Masses, GI-RADS, Primenposual

---

References :

1. Wu, Y., Dai, W., Li, X. et al.Development and validation of an artificial intelligence-based model for diagnosing benign, borderline, and malignant adnexal masses. npj Precis. Onc. 10, 106 (2026). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41698-026-01320-5
2. Sahu, S. A. & Shrivastava, D. A Comprehensive review of screening methods for ovarian masses: towards earlier detection. Cureus15, e48534 (2023).
3. Timor-Tritsch, I. E. et al. New sonographic marker of borderline ovarian tumor: microcystic pattern of papillae and solid components. Ultrasound Obst. Gyn.54, 395–402 (2019).
4. Salvador, S. et al. Guideline No. 403: initial investigation and management of adnexal masses.  Obstet. Gynaecol. Ca.42, 1021–1029 (2020).
5. Di Legge, A. et al. Clinical and ultrasound characteristics of surgically removed adnexal lesions with largest diameter ≤ 2.5 cm: a pictorial essay. Ultrasound Obst. Gyn.50, 648–656 (2017).
6. Alina Makoyeva, et al. Use of CEUS LI-RADS for the accurate diagnosis of nodules in hepatocellular carcinoma: a validation study. Radiology. 2020.
7. F Behnamfar, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of Gynecology Imaging Reporting and Data System in evaluation of adnexal lesions. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2019;29(Suppl 4):EP798.
8. American Cancer Society. Cancer Facts & Figures 2014. Atlanta: American Cancer Society; 2014.
9. Kaijser J. Towards an evidence-based approach for diagnosis and management of adnexal masses: findings of the International Ovarian Tumour Analysis (IOTA) studies. Facts, views & vision in ObGyn. 2015;7(1):42.
10. Abd El Salam SM, Hamed ST, Sayed MA. Diagnostic performance of GI-RADS reporting system. Egypt J Radiol Nucl Med. 2020;51:60.
11. Zhang Y, et al. Diagnostic performance of GI-RADS: a meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2020.
12. Lai HW, Lyu GR, Kang Z, et al. Comparison of O-RADS, GI-RADS, and ADNEX models. J Ultrasound Med. 2022;41(6):1497–1507.
13. Janas, A., Janas, Ł., & Siedlaczek, A. (2022). Diagnostic value of Human Epididymis Protein 4 (HE4), Cancer Antigen 125 (CA125) and the ROMA algorithm in the detection of malignant adnexal masses. Ginekologia Polska, 93(10), 803–810. https://doi.org/10.5603/GP.a2022.0006
14. Yasir, O., Elbadawi, Raga, A., Abouraida, Ahmed, A., Farah, H., Ahmed, Mohammed, A., Elamin, Sami, Elgak (2026). Efficiency of Ultrasound in Detection of Ovarian Tumors. : Saudi J Med Pharm Sci ISSN 2413-4929 (Print) | ISSN 2413-4910 (Online) DOI: https://doi.org/10.36348/sjmps.2025.v11i07.00X.
15. Amor F, Vaccaro H, Alcázar JL, León M, Craig JM, Martínez J. Gynecologic Imaging Reporting and Data System: a new proposal for classifying adnexal masses on the basis of sonographic findings. J Ultrasound Med. 2009;28(3):285–291.
16. Guo, W., Zou, X., Xu, H., Zhang, T., Zhao, Y., Gao, L., Duan, W., Ma, X., & Zhang, L. (2021). The diagnostic performance of the Gynecologic Imaging Reporting and Data System (GI-RADS) in adnexal masses. Annals of translational medicine, 9(5), 398. https://doi.org/10.21037/atm-20-5170