Reservations Regarding O-RADS Recommendations Response

status: publishe

Cigarette smoking prior to first cancer and risk of second smoking-associated cancers among survivors of bladder, kidney, head and neck, and stage I lung cancers

PURPOSE: Data on smoking and second cancer risk among cancer survivors are limited. We assessed associations between smoking before first cancer diagnosis and risk of second primary smoking-associated cancers among survivors of lung (stage I), bladder, kidney, and head/neck cancers. METHODS: Data were pooled from 2,552 patients with stage I lung cancer, 6,386 with bladder cancer, 3,179 with kidney cancer, and 2,967 with head/neck cancer from five cohort studies. We assessed the association between prediagnostic smoking and second smoking-associated cancer risk with proportional hazards regression, and compared these estimates to those for first smoking-associated cancers in all cohort participants. RESULTS: Compared with never smoking, current smoking of ≥ 20 cigarettes per day was associated with increased second smoking-associated cancer risk among survivors of stage I lung (hazard ratio [HR] = 3.26; 95% CI, 0.92 to 11.6), bladder (HR = 3.67; 95% CI, 2.25 to 5.99), head/neck (HR = 4.45; 95% CI, 2.56 to 7.73), and kidney cancers (HR = 5.33; 95% CI, 2.55 to 11.1). These estimates were similar to those for first smoking-associated cancer among all cohort participants (HR = 5.41; 95% CI, 5.23 to 5.61). The 5-year cumulative incidence of second smoking-associated cancers ranged from 3% to 8% in this group of cancer survivors. CONCLUSION: Understanding risk factors for second cancers among cancer survivors is crucial. Our data indicate that cigarette smoking before first cancer diagnosis increases second cancer risk among cancer survivors, and elevated cancer risk in these survivors is likely due to increased smoking prevalence. The high 5-year cumulative risks of smoking-associated cancers among current smoking survivors of stage I lung, bladder, kidney, and head/neck cancers highlight the importance of smoking cessation in patients with cancer

O-RADS US Risk Stratification and Management System: A Consensus Guideline from the ACR Ovarian-Adnexal Reporting and Data System Committee

The Ovarian-Adnexal Reporting and Data System (O-RADS) US risk stratification and management system is designed to provide consistent interpretations, to decrease or eliminate ambiguity in US reports resulting in a higher probability of accuracy in assigning risk of malignancy to ovarian and other adnexal masses, and to provide a management recommendation for each risk category. It was developed by an international multidisciplinary committee sponsored by the American College of Radiology and applies the standardized reporting tool for US based on the 2018 published lexicon of the O-RADS US working group. For risk stratification, the O-RADS US system recommends six categories (O-RADS 0-5), incorporating the range of normal to high risk of malignancy. This unique system represents a collaboration between the pattern-based approach commonly used in North America and the widely used, European-based, algorithmic-style International Ovarian Tumor Analysis (IOTA) Assessment of Different Neoplasias in the Adnexa model system, a risk prediction model that has undergone successful prospective and external validation. The pattern approach relies on a subgroup of the most predictive descriptors in the lexicon based on a retrospective review of evidence prospectively obtained in the IOTA phase 1-3 prospective studies and other supporting studies that assist in differentiating management schemes in a variety of almost certainly benign lesions. With O-RADS US working group consensus, guidelines for management in the different risk categories are proposed. Both systems have been stratified to reach the same risk categories and management strategies regardless of which is initially used. At this time, O-RADS US is the only lexicon and classification system that encompasses all risk categories with their associated management schemes.status: publishe

Pooling prospective studies to investigate the etiology of second cancers

BACKGROUND: With over 13 million cancer survivors in the United States today, second cancers are of rapidly growing importance. However, data on non-treatment risk factors for second cancers are sparse. We explored the feasibility of pooling data from cohort studies of cancer incidence to investigate second cancer etiology. METHODS: We combined data from five prospective studies including more than 800,000 individuals. We compared study designs and populations; evaluated availability of and ability to harmonize risk factor data; compared incidence and survival for common first primary malignancies and incidence of second primary malignancies; and estimated sample size requirements. RESULTS: Overall, 96,513 incident, first primary malignancies were diagnosed during 1985–2009. Incidence rates and survival following the first primary varied among the cohorts, but most of the heterogeneity could be explained by characteristics of the study populations (age, sex, smoking, and screening rates). 7,890 second primary cancers (excluding original primary site) were identified, yielding sufficient statistical power (≥80%) for detecting modest associations with risk of all second cancers among survivors of common first primary malignancies (e.g., colorectal cancer); however, there were insufficient events for studying survivors of rarer cancers or identifying risk factors for specific second cancers. CONCLUSIONS: Pooling data from cohort studies to investigate non-treatment risk factors for second primary cancers appears feasible but there are important methodological issues - some of which are barriers to specific research questions - that require special attention. IMPACT: Increased understanding of non-treatment risk factors for second cancers will provide valuable prevention and surveillance information

External Validation of the Ovarian-Adnexal Reporting and Data System (O-RADS) Lexicon and the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis 2-Step Strategy to Stratify Ovarian Tumors Into O-RADS Risk Groups

IMPORTANCE: Correct diagnosis of ovarian cancer results in better prognosis. Adnexal lesions can be stratified into the Ovarian-Adnexal Reporting and Data System (O-RADS) risk of malignancy categories with either the O-RADS lexicon, proposed by the American College of Radiology, or the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis (IOTA) 2-step strategy.OBJECTIVE: To investigate the diagnostic performance of the O-RADS lexicon and the IOTA 2-step strategy.DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Retrospective external diagnostic validation study based on interim data of IOTA5, a prospective international multicenter cohort study, in 36 oncology referral centers or other types of centers. A total of 8519 consecutive adult patients presenting with an adnexal mass between January 1, 2012, and March 1, 2015, and treated either with surgery or conservatively were included in this diagnostic study. Twenty-five patients were excluded for withdrawal of consent, 2777 were excluded from 19 centers that did not meet predefined data quality criteria, and 812 were excluded because they were already in follow-up at recruitment. The analysis included 4905 patients with a newly detected adnexal mass in 17 centers that met predefined data quality criteria. Data were analyzed from January 31 to March 1, 2022.EXPOSURES: Stratification into O-RADS categories (malignancy risk <1%, 1% to <10%, 10% to <50%, and ≥50%). For the IOTA 2-step strategy, the stratification is based on the individual risk of malignancy calculated with the IOTA 2-step strategy.MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Observed prevalence of malignancy in each O-RADS risk category, as well as sensitivity and specificity. The reference standard was the status of the tumor at inclusion, determined by histology or clinical and ultrasonographic follow-up for 1 year. Multiple imputation was used for uncertain outcomes owing to inconclusive follow-up information.RESULTS: Median age of the 4905 patients was 48 years (IQR, 36-62 years). Data on race and ethnicity were not collected. A total of 3441 tumors (70%) were benign, 978 (20%) were malignant, and 486 (10%) had uncertain classification. Using the O-RADS lexicon resulted in 1.1% (24 of 2196) observed prevalence of malignancy in O-RADS 2, 4% (34 of 857) in O-RADS 3, 27% (246 of 904) in O-RADS 4, and 78% (732 of 939) in O-RADS 5; the corresponding results for the IOTA 2-step strategy were 0.9% (18 of 1984), 4% (58 of 1304), 30% (206 of 690), and 82% (756 of 927). At the 10% risk threshold (O-RADS 4-5), the O-RADS lexicon had 92% sensitivity (95% CI, 87%-96%) and 80% specificity (95% CI, 74%-85%), and the IOTA 2-step strategy had 91% sensitivity (95% CI, 84%-95%) and 85% specificity (95% CI, 80%-88%).CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The findings of this external diagnostic validation study suggest that both the O-RADS lexicon and the IOTA 2-step strategy can be used to stratify patients into risk groups. However, the observed malignancy rate in O-RADS 2 was not clearly below 1%