Discussion of the importance of ultrasound for the preoperative diagnosis of ovarian tumors (the main provisions of the consensus of leading international organizations, published in June 2021)
https://doi.org/10.17650/1994-4098-2023-19-4-114-122
Abstract
The aim of this work is to analyze the main provisions of consensus, leading international organizations to identify significant ultrasound signs of ovarian tumors at the stage of preoperative diagnosis. Considering the fact that malignant ovarian tumors do not always have specific signs and are accessible to imaging methods, therefore, the risk stratification model in the system of reports and data on ovaries and appendages (O-RADS) is a useful tool that helps classify the formation of appendages into higher risk categories.
About the Authors
M. A. Chekalova
Federal Research and Clinical Center for Specialized Medical Care and Medical Technologies, Federal Medical and Biological Agency of the Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
28 Orekhovyy Bulvar, Moscow 115682
A. G. Kedrova
Federal Research and Clinical Center for Specialized Medical Care and Medical Technologies, Federal Medical and Biological Agency of the Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
28 Orekhovyy Bulvar, Moscow 115682
E. Yu. Cherkasov
Central Clinic No. 2 of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
38 Zatsepa St., Moscow 115054
V. S. Kryazheva
A.S. Loginov Moscow Clinical Scientific Center, Moscow Healthcare Department
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Varvara Sergeevna Kryazheva
86 Shosse Enthuziastov, Moscow 111123
T. A. Greyan
Federal Research and Clinical Center for Specialized Medical Care and Medical Technologies, Federal Medical and Biological Agency of the Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
28 Orekhovyy Bulvar, Moscow 115682
References
1. Ashrafyan L.A., Antonova I.B., Aleshikova O.I. et al. Prospects for early diagnosis of ovarian cancer. Vestnik RNTsRR = Bulletin of Russian Research Center of Radiology 2014;(4):1. (In Russ.)
2. Diagnosis and treatment of benign ovarian tumors for cancer prevention. Clinical guideline (treatment protocol). 2018. (In Russ.)
3. Karseladze A.I. Some problems in clinical morphology of epithelial ovarian tumors. Prakticheskaya onkologiya = Practical Oncology 2000;(4):14–8. (In Russ.)
4. Кaijser J., Bourne T., Valentin L. et al. Improving strategies for diagnosing ovarian cancer: A summary of the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis (IOTA) studies. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2013;41(1):9–20. DOI: 10.1002/uog.12323
5. Meys E.M., Kaijser J., Kruitwagen R.F. et al. Subjective assessment versus ultrasound models to diagnose ovarian cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Cancer 2016;58:17–29. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejca.2016.01.007
6. Timmerman D., Calster V.B., Testa A. et al. Predicting the risk of malignancy in adnexal masses based on the Simple Rules from the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis group. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2016;214:424–37. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2016.01.007
7. Valentin L., Hagen B., Tingulstad S. et al. Comparison of “pattern recognition” and logistic regression models for discrimination between benign and malignant pelvic masses: A prospective cross validation. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2001;18:357–365. DOI: 10.1046/j.0960-7692.2001.00500.x
8. Timmerman D., Bourne T., Taylor A. A comparison of methods of the preoperative discrimination between benign and malignant adnexal masses. The development of a new logistic regression model. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1999;181:57–65. DOI: 10.1016/s0002-9378(99)70436-9
9. Yazbek J., Raju S.K., Ben-Nagi J. et al. Effect of quality of gynaecological ultrasonography on management of patients with suspected ovarian cancer: A randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol 2008;9:124–31. DOI: 10.1016/S1470-2045(08)70005-6
10. Education and Practical Standards Committee, European Federation of Societies for Ultrasound in Medicine and Biology. Minimum training recommendations for the practice of medical ultrasound. Ultraschall Med 2006;27:79–105. DOI: 10.1055/s-2006-933605
11. Tavoraite I., Kronlachner L., Opolskiene G. et al. Ultrasound assessment of adnexal pathology: Standardized methods and different levels of experience. Medicina 2021;57:708–16. DOI: 10.3390/medicina57070708
12. Campbell S. Ovarian cancer: Role of ultrasound in preoperative diagnosis and population screening. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2012;40:245–54.
13. Kaijser J., Sayasneh A., Hoorde V.K. et al. Presurgical diagnosis of adnexal tumours using mathematical models and scoring systems: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod Update 2014;20:449–62. DOI: 10.1093/humupd/dmt059
14. Van Gorp T., Cadron I., Despierre E. et al. HE 4 and CA 125 as a diagnostic test in ovarian cancer: prospective validation of Risk of Ovarian Malignancy Algorithm. Br J Cancer 2011;104:863–70.
15. Fischerova D. Ultrasound scanning of the pelvis and abdomen for staging of gynecological tumors: A review. Ultrasound Obstetrics Gynecol 2011;38:246–66. DOI: 10.1002/uog.10054
16. Timmerman D., Planchamp F., Bourne T. et al. ESGO/ISUOG/IOTA/ESGE Consensus Statement on pre-operative diagnosis of ovarian tumors. Int J Ginekol Cancer 2021;7(31):961–82. DOI: 10.1136/ijgc-2021-002565
17. Timmerman D., Schwarzler P., Collins W.P. et al. Subjective assessment of adnexal masses with the use of ultrasonography: An analysis of interobserver variability and experience. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1999;13:11–6. DOI: 10.1046/j.1469-0705.1999.13010011.x
18. Van Calster B., Van Hoorde K., Valentin L. et al. Evaluating the risk of ovarian cancer before surgery using the ADNEX model to differentiate between benign, borderline, early and advanced stage invasive, and secondary metastatic tumours: prospective multicentre diagnostic study. BMJ 2014;349:59. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.g5920
19. Van Holsbeke C., Van Calster B., Bourne T. et al. External validation of diagnostic models to estimate the risk of malignancy in adnexal masses. Clin Cancer Res 2012;18:815–25.
20. Sayasneh A., Wynants L., Preisler J. et al. Multicentre external validation of IOTA prediction models and RMI by operators with varied training. Br J Cancer 2013;108:2448–54. DOI: 10.1038/bjc.2013.224
21. Moro F., Zannoni G.F., Arciuolo D. et al. Imaging in gynecological disease (11): Clinical and ultrasound features of mucinous ovarian tumors. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2017;50:261–70. DOI: 10.1002/uog.17222
22. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists’ Committee on Practice Bulletins – Gynecology. Practice Bulletin No. 174. Evaluation and Management of Adnexal Masses. Obstet Gynecol 2016;128:210–26.
23. Amor F., Alcazar J., Vaccaro H. et al. GI-RADS reporting system for ultrasound evaluation of adnexal masses in clinical practice: A prospective multicenter study. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2011;38:450–5. DOI: 10.1002/uog.9012
24. Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. Management of suspected ovarian masses in premenopausal women. Green-top Guideline 2020. No. 62.
25. Van Calster B., Valentin L., Froyman W. et al. Validation of models to diagnose ovarian cancer in patients managed surgically or conservatively: Multicentre cohort study. BMJ 2020;370:2614. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.m2614
26. 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. Radiology 2020;294:168–85.
27. Basha M.A., Metwally M.I., Gamil S.A. et al. Comparison of O-RADS, GI-RADS, and IOTA simple rules regarding malignancy rate, validity, and reliability for diagnosis of adnexal masses. Eur Radiol 2021;31:674–84. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-020-07143-7
28. Andreotti R.F., Timmerman D., Benacerraf B.R. et al. Ovarianadnexal reporting lexicon for ultrasound: A white paper of the ACR ovarian-adnexal reporting and data system committee. J Am Coll Radiol 2018;15(10):1415–29. DOI: 10.1016/j.jacr.2018.07.004
29. Glanc P., Benacerraf B., Bourne T. et al. First international consensus report on adnexal masses: Management recommendations. J Ultrasound Med 2017;36:849–63. DOI: 10.1002/jum.14197
30. Rockson O., Kora C., Ramdani A. et al. Struma ovarii: Two case reports of a rare teratoma of the ovary. J Surg Case Rep 2020;2020(12). DOI: 10.1093/jscr/rjaa493
31. Turgay B., Koyuncu K., Taşkin S. et al. Features of ovarian Brenner tumors: Experience of a single tertiary center. Turk J Obstet Gynecol 2017;14:133–7. DOI: 10.4274/tjod.98216
32. Dierickx I., Valentin L., Van Holsbeke C. et al. Imaging in gynecological disease (7): Clinical and ultrasound features of Brenner tumors of the ovary. Obstet Gynecol 2012;40:706–13. DOI: 10.1002/uog.11149
33. Bulanov M.N., Chekalova M.A., Mazurkevich M.V., Vetsheva N.N. Utility of the O-RADS system in ultrasound examination of the uterine appendages: Methodological guideline. Moscow: Research and Practical Clinical Center for Diagnostics and Telemedicine Technologies, Moscow Healthcare Department, 2020. 27 p. (In Russ.)
34. Chekalova M.A. Ovarian cancer. Fundamental and clinical research. In: Ultrasound examination for ovarian cancer. Ed. by N.E. Kushlinskiy, L.F. Gulyaeva, N.A. Ognerubova, M.S. Stilidi. Moscow: Blok-print, 2021. Pp. 582–615. (In Russ.)
35. Chekalova M.A. Ultrasound diagnostics in gynecological oncology. In: Gynecological oncology: national guideline. Ed. by A.D. Kaprin, L.A. Ashrafyan, I.S. Stilidi. Moscow: GEOTAR-Media, 2019. Pp. 51–76. (In Russ.)
36. Ozerskaya I.A., Chekalova M.A., Ivanov V.A., Kazaryan G.G. Analysis of echographic signs of ovarian tumors. Meditsinskaya vizualizatsiya = Medical Visualization 2022;4(26):110–28. (In Russ.)
Review
For citations:
Chekalova M.A., Kedrova A.G., Cherkasov E.Yu., Kryazheva V.S., Greyan T.A. Discussion of the importance of ultrasound for the preoperative diagnosis of ovarian tumors (the main provisions of the consensus of leading international organizations, published in June 2021). Tumors of female reproductive system. 2023;19(4):114-122. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17650/1994-4098-2023-19-4-114-122
Views:
2057
Email this article 