LAUSR

OBJECTIVE Ultrasound is the primary modality used to evaluate adnexal lesions. Follow-up recommendations for ovarian cysts remain controversial between gynaecologists and radiologists. The objective of this study was to compare practice patterns for adnexal masses described on ultrasound on the basis of the interpreter's field of specialty. METHODS This study was conducted within the McGill University Hospital Network at two hospitals that differ in the department of interpretation of pelvic ultrasounds. In one hospital, all studies are reported by gynaecologists, and in the other, by radiologists. The study investigators collected data from pelvic ultrasounds of newly diagnosed ovarian lesions performed from May to June 2014. Multivariate logistic regression analyses were used to compare recommendation patterns between the two groups. RESULTS A total of 201 of 1110 pelvic ultrasound studies performed met our inclusion criteria. Gynaecologists interpreted 69 (34%) pelvic ultrasounds, and radiologists reported on 132 (66%). Reported adnexal mass types were not significantly different between the two groups. As compared with gynaecologists, radiologists were more likely to recommend MRI or CT scans (OR 11.76; 95% CI 1.17-117.78), as well as follow-up ultrasound studies (OR 4.67; 95% CI 1.66-13.1), and they were less likely to recommend no further imaging (OR 0.18; 95% CI 0.07-0.45). Groups did not differ in recommendation patterns for referral to a specialist. CONCLUSION There are significant differences in recommendation patterns between gynaecologists and radiologists in evaluating new adnexal masses on ultrasound. This difference can have important effects on resource use and patients' concerns.