Search

Objective: Previous work suggested that the ultrasound-based benign Simple Descriptors can reliably exclude malignancy in a large proportion of women presenting with an adnexal mass. We aim to validate a modified version of the Benign Simple Descriptors (BD), and we introduce a two-step strategy to estimate the risk of malignancy: if the BDs do not apply, the ADNEX model is used to estimate the risk of malignancy. Methods: This is a retrospective analysis using the data from the 2-year interim analysis of the IOTA5 study, in which consecutive patients with at least one adnexal mass were recruited irrespective of subsequent management (conservative or surgery). The main outcome was classification of tumors as benign or malignant, based on histology or on clinical and ultrasound information during one year of follow-up. Multiple imputation was used when outcome based on follow-up was uncertain according to predefined criteria. Results: 8519 patients were recruited at 36 centers between 2012 and 2015. We included all masses that were not already in follow-up at recruitment from 17 centers with good quality surgical and follow-up data, leaving 4905 patients for statistical analysis. 3441 (70%) tumors were benign, 978 (20%) malignant, and 486 (10%) uncertain. The BDs were applicable in 1798/4905 (37%) tumors, and 1786 (99.3%) of these were benign. The two-step strategy based on ADNEX without CA125 had an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of 0.94 (95% CI, 0.91-0.95). The risk of malignancy was slightly underestimated, but calibration varied between centers. A sensitivity analysis in which we expanded the definition of uncertain outcome resulted in 1419 (29%) tumors with uncertain outcome and an AUC of the two-step strategy without CA125 of 0.93 (95% CI, 0.91-0.95). Conclusion: A large proportion of adnexal masses can be classified as benign by the BDs. For the remaining masses the ADNEX model can be used to estimate the risk of malignancy. This

ObjectivePrevious work has suggested that the ultrasound-based benign simple descriptors (BDs) can reliably exclude malignancy in a large proportion of women presenting with an adnexal mass. This study aimed to validate a modified version of the BDs and to validate a two-step strategy to estimate the risk of malignancy, in which the modified BDs are followed by the Assessment of Different NEoplasias in the adneXa (ADNEX) model if modified BDs do not apply. MethodsThis was a retrospective analysis using data from the 2-year interim analysis of the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis (IOTA) Phase-5 study, in which consecutive patients with at least one adnexal mass were recruited irrespective of subsequent management (conservative or surgery). The main outcome was classification of tumors as benign or malignant, based on histology or on clinical and ultrasound information during 1 year of follow-up. Multiple imputation was used when outcome based on follow-up was uncertain according to predefined criteria. ResultsA total of 8519 patients were recruited at 36 centers between 2012 and 2015. We excluded patients who were already in follow-up at recruitment and all patients from 19 centers that did not fulfil our criteria for good-quality surgical and follow-up data, leaving 4905 patients across 17 centers for statistical analysis. Overall, 3441 (70%) tumors were benign, 978 (20%) malignant and 486 (10%) uncertain. The modified BDs were applicable in 1798/4905 (37%) tumors, of which 1786 (99.3%) were benign. The two-step strategy based on ADNEX without CA125 had an area under the receiver-operating-characteristics curve (AUC) of 0.94 (95% CI, 0.92-0.96). The risk of malignancy was slightly underestimated, but calibration varied between centers. A sensitivity analysis in which we expanded the definition of uncertain outcome resulted in 1419 (29%) tumors with uncertain outcome and an AUC of the two-step strategy without CA125 of 0.93 (95% CI, 0.91-0.95). ConclusionA large

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).

Objective: To describe the clinical and ultrasound characteristics of ovarian carcinosarcoma. Methods: This was a retrospective multicenter study. Patients with a histological diagnosis of ovarian carcinosarcoma, who had undergone preoperative ultrasound examination between 2010 and 2019, were identified from the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis (IOTA) database. Additional patients who were examined outside of the IOTA study were identified from the databases of the participating centers. The masses were described using the terms and definitions of the IOTA group. Additionally, two experienced ultrasound examiners reviewed all available images to identify typical ultrasound features using pattern recognition. Results: Ninety-one patients with ovarian carcinosarcoma who had undergone ultrasound examination were identified, of whom 24 were examined within the IOTA studies and 67 were examined outside of the IOTA studies. Median age at diagnosis was 66 (range, 33–91) years and 84/91 (92.3%) patients were postmenopausal. Most patients (67/91, 73.6%) were symptomatic, with the most common complaint being pain (51/91, 56.0%). Most tumors (67/91, 73.6%) were International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) Stage III or IV. Bilateral lesions were observed on ultrasound in 46/91 (50.5%) patients. Ascites was present in 38/91 (41.8%) patients. The median largest tumor diameter was 100 (range, 18–260) mm. All ovarian carcinosarcomas contained solid components, and most were described as solid (66/91, 72.5%) or multilocular-solid (22/91, 24.2%). The median diameter of the largest solid component was 77.5 (range, 11–238) mm. Moderate or rich vascularization was found in 78/91 (85.7%) cases. Retrospective analysis of ultrasound images and videoclips using pattern recognition in 73 cases revealed that all tumors had irregular margins and inhomogeneous echogenicity of the solid components. Forty-seven of 73 (64.4%) masses appeared as a solid tumor with cystic areas.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the performance of diagnostic prediction models for ovarian malignancy in all patients with an ovarian mass managed surgically or conservatively. DESIGN: Multicentre cohort study. SETTING: 36 oncology referral centres (tertiary centres with a specific gynaecological oncology unit) or other types of centre. PARTICIPANTS: Consecutive adult patients presenting with an adnexal mass between January 2012 and March 2015 and managed by surgery or follow-up. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Overall and centre specific discrimination, calibration, and clinical utility of six prediction models for ovarian malignancy (risk of malignancy index (RMI), logistic regression model 2 (LR2), simple rules, simple rules risk model (SRRisk), assessment of different neoplasias in the adnexa (ADNEX) with or without CA125). ADNEX allows the risk of malignancy to be subdivided into risks of a borderline, stage I primary, stage II-IV primary, or secondary metastatic malignancy. The outcome was based on histology if patients underwent surgery, or on results of clinical and ultrasound follow-up at 12 (±2) months. Multiple imputation was used when outcome based on follow-up was uncertain. RESULTS: The primary analysis included 17 centres that met strict quality criteria for surgical and follow-up data (5717 of all 8519 patients). 812 patients (14%) had a mass that was already in follow-up at study recruitment, therefore 4905 patients were included in the statistical analysis. The outcome was benign in 3441 (70%) patients and malignant in 978 (20%). Uncertain outcomes (486, 10%) were most often explained by limited follow-up information. The overall area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was highest for ADNEX with CA125 (0.94, 95% confidence interval 0.92 to 0.96), ADNEX without CA125 (0.94, 0.91 to 0.95) and SRRisk (0.94, 0.91 to 0.95), and lowest for RMI (0.89, 0.85 to 0.92). Calibration varied among centres for all models, however the ADNEX models and SRRisk were th

Objective: To describe the clinical and ultrasound characteristics of three types of rare malignant ovarian germ cell tumor: embryonal carcinoma, non-gestational choriocarcinoma and malignant mixed germ cell tumor. Methods: This was a retrospective multicenter study. From the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis (IOTA) database, we identified patients with a histological diagnosis of ovarian embryonal carcinoma, non-gestational choriocarcinoma or malignant mixed germ cell tumor, who had undergone preoperative ultrasound examination by an experienced ultrasound examiner between 2000 and 2020. Additional patients with the same histology were identified from the databases of the departments of gynecological oncology in the participating centers. All tumors were described using IOTA terminology. Three examiners reviewed all available ultrasound images and described them using pattern recognition. Results: One patient with embryonal carcinoma, five patients with non-gestational ovarian choriocarcinoma and seven patients with ovarian malignant mixed germ cell tumor (six primary tumors and one recurrence) were identified. Seven patients were included in the IOTA studies and six patients were examined outside of the IOTA studies. The median age at diagnosis was 26 (range, 14–77) years. Beta-human chorionic gonadotropin levels were highest in non-gestational choriocarcinomas and alpha-fetoprotein levels were highest in malignant mixed germ cell tumors. Most tumors were International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) Stage I (9/12 (75.0%)). All tumors were unilateral, and the median largest diameter was 129 (range, 38–216) mm. Of the tumors, 11/13 (84.6%) were solid and 2/13 (15.4%) were multilocular-solid; 9/13 (69.2%) manifested abundant vascularization on color Doppler examination. Using pattern recognition, the typical ultrasound appearance was a large solid tumor with inhomogeneous echogenicity of the solid tissue and often dispersed cysts which, in most cas

The current review sums up the literature on the diagnostic performance of models to predict malignancy in adnexal masses and the ability of ultrasound to make a specific diagnosis in adnexal masses. A summary of the role of ultrasound in assessing the extension of malignant ovarian disease is also provided.

We thank Isabelle Thomassin-Nagarra et al for their interest in the ESGO/ISUOG/IOTA/ESGE consensus statement on the pre-operative diagnosis of ovarian tumors. This statement is based on a careful review of the relevant literature and available evidence as well as on structured discussions between experienced radiologists, gynecologists, gynecological oncologists and a patient representative. Therefore, we hope that the statement will prove valuable for clinical practice. We fully agree that our patients are best served when different imaging methods are used appropriately. On the other hand, we disagree with several claims made by Thomassin-Nagarra et al. First, they state that ultrasonographers cannot classify 25% of the adnexal masses. However, we showed that experienced ultrasound examiners cannot classify only 8%.1 Although the IOTA Simple Rules are not applicable in about 25% of cases, the Simple Rules Risk model and the IOTA ADNEX model adequately address all tumors.2 Furthermore, the ACR consensus does not recommend MRI for further evaluation of O-RADS US 3 and 4 category lesions, but it does recommend referral to an ultrasound specialist or MRI.3 The prospective European cohort study on MRI4 is discussed in the consensus statement: “The addition of quantitative dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI to diffusion-weighted imaging and anatomical MRI sequences and the development of a five-point scoring system (O-RADS MRI score) is another modern diagnostic development with promising potential for the differentiation between benign and malignant adnexal masses in cases in which ultrasound is unable to provide a clear diagnosis (ie, indeterminate masses)”. It is however, noteworthy that this study did not compare the performance of experienced ultrasound examiners with MRI and that the selection criteria for MRI were not clearly explained. Further studies on the complementary role and clinical impact on decision-making of MRI and ultrasonography are needed with larger sa

The European Society of Gynaecological Oncology (ESGO), the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology (ISUOG), the International Ovarian Tumour Analysis (IOTA) group, and the European Society for Gynaecological Endoscopy (ESGE) jointly developed clinically relevant and evidence-based statements on the pre-operative diagnosis of ovarian tumors, including imaging techniques, biomarkers, and prediction models. ESGO/ISUOG/IOTA/ESGE nominated a multidisciplinary international group, including expert practising clinicians and researchers who have demonstrated leadership and expertise in the pre-operative diagnosis of ovarian tumors and management of patients with ovarian cancer (19 experts across Europe). A patient representative was also included in the group. To ensure that the statements were evidence-based, the current literature was reviewed and critically appraised. Preliminary statements were drafted based on the review of the relevant literature. During a conference call, the whole group discussed each preliminary statement and a first round of voting was carried out. Statements were removed when a consensus among group members was not obtained. The voters had the opportunity to provide comments/suggestions with their votes. The statements were then revised accordingly. Another round of voting was carried out according to the same rules to allow the whole group to evaluate the revised version of the statements. The group achieved consensus on 18 statements. This Consensus Statement presents these ESGO/ISUOG/IOTA/ESGE statements on the pre-operative diagnosis of ovarian tumors and the assessment of carcinomatosis, together with a summary of the evidence supporting each statement.

The European Society of Gynaecological Oncology (ESGO), the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology (ISUOG), the International Ovarian Tumour Analysis (IOTA) group and the European Society for Gynaecological Endoscopy (ESGE) jointly developed clinically relevant and evidence-based statements on the preoperative diagnosis of ovarian tumors, including imaging techniques, biomarkers and prediction models. ESGO/ISUOG/IOTA/ESGE nominated a multidisciplinary international group, including expert practising clinicians and researchers who have demonstrated leadership and expertise in the preoperative diagnosis of ovarian tumors and management of patients with ovarian cancer (19 experts across Europe). A patient representative was also included in the group. To ensure that the statements were evidence-based, the current literature was reviewed and critically appraised. Preliminary statements were drafted based on the review of the relevant literature. During a conference call, the whole group discussed each preliminary statement and a first round of voting was carried out. Statements were removed when consensus among group members was not obtained. The voters had the opportunity to provide comments/suggestions with their votes. The statements were then revised accordingly. Another round of voting was carried out according to the same rules to allow the whole group to evaluate the revised version of the statements. The group achieved consensus on 18 statements. This Consensus Statement presents these ESGO/ISUOG/IOTA/ESGE statements on the preoperative diagnosis of ovarian tumors and the assessment of carcinomatosis, together with a summary of the evidence supporting each statement.

Ultrasound examination is considered to be the first line imaging method to diagnose an ovarian mass with a high degree of accuracy, discriminating between benign and malignant ovarian masses in the hands of experienced examiners. The International Ovarian Tumor Analysis (IOTA) group provided a standardized terminology of ovarian masses1 and suggested simple ultrasound rules that can be used to classify adnexal masses as benign or malignant.2 The IOTA group has also created logistic regression models (ie, ADNEX (Assessment of Different NEoplasias in the adneXa) model), including clinical and ultrasound information to calculate the likelihood of malignancy in adnexal masses. The IOTA ADNEX model estimates the likelihood not only of an adnexal mass being benign or malignant but also the likelihood that the mass is benign, borderline malignant, stage I primary invasive malignant, stage II–IV primary invasive malignant or a metastasis in the ovary from another primary tumor.3 Recently, a consensus meeting including European and North American professionals developed a new risk model for the pre-operative assessment of adnexal masses, called O-RADS (Ovarian-Adnexal Reporting and Data System). The O-RADS ultrasound risk stratification and management system was designed to provide consistent interpretations, to decrease or eliminate ambiguity in ultrasound 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.4 Moreover, during the past 15 years authors of the IOTA group have described the typical ultrasound appearance of several different adnexal pathologies, including various histotypes of malignancy, collected in the series of “Imaging in gynecology” papers.5–10 Indeed, ovarian cancer includes several histological entities which can be grouped into four histological groups: epithelial tumors, germ cell tumors, stromal tumors and metastat