Search

BACKGROUND: Borderline ovarian tumors (BOTs) and early clinical stage malignant adnexal masses can make sonographic diagnosis challenging, while the clinical utility of tumor markers, e.g., CA125 and HE4, or the ROMA algorithm, remains controversial in such cases. OBJECTIVE: To compare the IOTA group Simple Rules Risk (SRR), the ADNEX model and the subjective assessment (SA) with serum CA125, HE4 and the ROMA algorithm in the preoperative discrimination between benign tumors, BOTs and stage I malignant ovarian lesions (MOLs). METHODS: A multicenter retrospective study was conducted with lesions classified prospectively using subjective assessment and tumor markers with the ROMA. The SRR assessment and ADNEX risk estimation were applied retrospectively. The sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative likelihood ratios (LR+ and LR−) were calculated for all tests. RESULTS: In total, 108 patients (the median age: 48 yrs, 44 postmenopausal) with 62 (79.6%) benign masses, 26 (24.1%) BOTs and 20 (18.5%) stage I MOLs were included. When comparing benign masses with combined BOTs and stage I MOLs, SA correctly identified 76% of benign masses, 69% of BOTs and 80% of stage I MOLs. Significant differences were found for the presence and size of the largest solid component (p = 0.0006), the number of papillary projections (p = 0.01), papillation contour (p = 0.008) and IOTA color score (p = 0.0009). The SRR and ADNEX models were characterized by the highest sensitivity (80% and 70%, respectively), whereas the highest specificity was found for SA (94%). The corresponding likelihood ratios were as follows: LR+ = 3.59 and LR− = 0.43 for the ADNEX; LR+ = 6.40 and LR− = 0.63 for SA and LR+ = 1.85 with LR− = 0.35 for the SRR. The sensitivity and specificity of the ROMA test were 50% and 85%, respectively, with LR+ = 3.44 and LR− = 0.58. Of all the tests, the ADNEX model had the highest diagnostic accuracy of 76%. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates the limited value of diagnostics based on CA125 and HE4 serum tumor markers and the ROMA algorithm as independent modalities for the detection of BOTs and early stage adnexal malignant tumors in women. SA and IOTA methods based on ultrasound examination may present superior value over tumor marker assessment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The assessment of the usefulness of dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (DCE-MRI) when qualifying patients with uterine fibroids (UFs) for magnetic resonance-guided high-intensity ultrasound (MR-HIFU). Material and methods: This retrospective, single center study included 283 women who underwent DCE-MRI and were treated with MR-HIFU. The patients were divided according to non-perfused volume (NPV) as well as by the type of curve for patients with a washout curve in the DCE-MRI study and patients without a washout curve. The studied women were assessed in three groups according to the type of uterotonics administered. Group A (57 patients) received one dose of misoprostol/diclofenac transvaginally and group B (71 patients) received oxytocin intravenously prior to the MR-HIFU procedure. The remaining 155 women (group C) were treated with the traditional non-drug enhanced MR-HIFU procedure. Results: The average NPV value was higher in no washout group, and depended on the uterotonics used. Conclusions: We demonstrated a correlation between dynamic contrast enhancement curve types and the therapeutic efficacy of MR-HIFU. Our results suggest that DCE-MRI has the potential to assess treatment outcomes among patients with UFs, and patients with UFs that present with a washout curve may benefit from the use of uterotonic drugs. More studies are required to draw final conclusions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: To evaluate the accuracy of subjective assessment (SA), the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis (IOTA) group Simple Rules Risk (SRR) and the Assessment of Different NEoplasias in the adneXa (ADNEX) model for the preoperative differentiation of adnexal masses in pregnant women. Methods: The study population comprised 36 pregnant women (median age: 28.5 years old, range: 20–42 years old) with a mean gestation age of 13.5 (range: 8–31) weeks at diagnosis. Tumors were prospectively classified by local sonographers as probably benign or probably malignant using SA. Final tumor histological diagnosis was used as the reference standard in all cases. Logistic regression SRR and ADNEX models were used to obtain a risk score for every case. Serum CA125 and human epidydimis protein 4 (HE4) concentrations were also retrieved and the Risk of Ovarian Malignancy Algorithm (ROMA) value was calculated. The calculated predictive values included positive and negative likelihood ratios of ultrasound and biochemical tests. Results: Final histology confirmed 27 benign and 9 malignant (including 2 borderline) masses. The highest sensitivity (89%) and specificity (70%) were found for the subjective tumor assessment. Although no malignancy was classified as benign using the SRR criteria (sensitivity = 100%), the specificity of this scoring system was only 37%. At the cut-off risk level of >20%, the ADNEX model had a sensitivity of 78% and a specificity of 70%. Serum levels of CA125, HE4 and the ROMA risk model correctly identified adnexal malignant tumors with a sensitivity of 67%, 25% and 25%, respectively. Corresponding specificities were 72%, 100% and 100%, respectively. The highest positive and negative likelihood ratios were found for SA (LR+ = 3.0 and LR− = 0.16, respectively). Overall diagnostic accuracy of all predictive methods used in this study were similar (range: 70–75%) except for SRR (53%). Conclusion: Subjective assessment remains the best predictive method in complex adnexal masses found at prenatal ultrasound in pregnant women. For less experienced sonographers, both the SRR and ADNEX scoring systems may be also used for the characterization of such tumors, while serum tumor markers CA125 and HE4, along with the ROMA algorithm appear to be less accurate. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Abnormal uterine bleeding (AUB) represents a common diagnostic challenge, as it might be related to both benign and malignant conditions. Endometrial cancer may not be detected with blind uterine cavity sampling by dilatation and curettage or suction devices. Several scoring systems using different ultrasound image characteristics were recently proposed to estimate the risk of endometrial cancer (EC) in women with AUB. Aim: The aim of the present study was to externally validate the predictive value of the recently proposed scoring systems including the Risk of Endometrial Cancer scoring model (REC) for EC risk stratification. Material and methods: It was a retrospective cohort study of women with postmenopausal bleeding. From June 2012 to June 2020 we studied a group of 394 women who underwent standard transvaginal ultrasound examination followed by power Doppler intrauterine vascularity assessment. Selected ultrasound features of endometrial lesions were assessed in each patient. Results: The median age was 60.3 years (range ± 10.7). The median body mass index (BMI) was 30.4 (range ± 6.0). Histological examination revealed 158 cases of endometrial hyperplasia (EH) and 236 cases of EC. Of the studied ultrasound endometrial features, the highest areas under the curve (AUCs) were found for endometrial thickness (ET) (AUC = 0.76; 95% CI: 0.71–0.81) and for interrupted endomyometrial junction (AUC = 0.70, 95% CI: 0.65–0.75). Selected scoring systems presented moderate to good predictive performance in differentiating EC and EH. The highest AUC was found for REC model (AUC = 0.75, 95% CI: 0.70–0.79) and for the basic model that included ET, Doppler score and interrupted endometrial junction (AUC = 0.77, 95% CI: 0.73–0.82). REC model was more accurate than other scoring systems and selected single features for differentiating benign hyperplasia from EC at early stages, regardless of menopausal status. Conclusions: New scoring systems, including the REC model may be used in women with AUB for more efficient differentiation between benign and malignant conditions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]