•It provides recommendations for risk reduction and screening in hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome.•It focuses on risk reduction and screening mainly in unaffected carriers and ...high-resource settings.•The panel encompasses an international multidisciplinary group of experts.•Recommendations are based on available scientific data and the authors’ collective expert opinion.
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.
Objectives To develop a risk prediction model to preoperatively discriminate between benign, borderline, stage I invasive, stage II-IV invasive, and secondary metastatic ovarian tumours.Design ...Observational diagnostic study using prospectively collected clinical and ultrasound data.Setting 24 ultrasound centres in 10 countries.Participants Women with an ovarian (including para-ovarian and tubal) mass and who underwent a standardised ultrasound examination before surgery. The model was developed on 3506 patients recruited between 1999 and 2007, temporally validated on 2403 patients recruited between 2009 and 2012, and then updated on all 5909 patients.Main outcome measures Histological classification and surgical staging of the mass.Results The Assessment of Different NEoplasias in the adneXa (ADNEX) model contains three clinical and six ultrasound predictors: age, serum CA-125 level, type of centre (oncology centres v other hospitals), maximum diameter of lesion, proportion of solid tissue, more than 10 cyst locules, number of papillary projections, acoustic shadows, and ascites. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) for the classic discrimination between benign and malignant tumours was 0.94 (0.93 to 0.95) on temporal validation. The AUC was 0.85 for benign versus borderline, 0.92 for benign versus stage I cancer, 0.99 for benign versus stage II-IV cancer, and 0.95 for benign versus secondary metastatic. AUCs between malignant subtypes varied between 0.71 and 0.95, with an AUC of 0.75 for borderline versus stage I cancer and 0.82 for stage II-IV versus secondary metastatic. Calibration curves showed that the estimated risks were accurate.Conclusions The ADNEX model discriminates well between benign and malignant tumours and offers fair to excellent discrimination between four types of ovarian malignancy. The use of ADNEX has the potential to improve triage and management decisions and so reduce morbidity and mortality associated with adnexal pathology.
Objectives. The primary aim was to investigate the diagnostic accuracy of transvaginal ultrasound (TVS) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in the mapping of deep pelvic endometriosis (DE) in a ...diseased population. The secondary aim was to offer first insights into the clinical applicability of the new International Deep Endometriosis Analysis group (IDEA) consensus for sonographic evaluation, which was also adapted for MRI and surgical reporting in this study. Methods. The study was a prospective observational cohort study. In this study, consecutive women planned for surgical treatment for DE underwent preoperative mapping of pelvic disease using TVS and MRI (index tests). The results were compared against the intraoperative findings with histopathological confirmation (reference standard). In case of disagreement between intraoperative and pathology findings, the latter was prioritised. Index tests and surgical findings were reported using a standardised protocol based on the IDEA consensus. Results. The study ran from 07/2016 to 02/2018. One-hundred and eleven women were approached, but 60 declined participation. Out of the 51 initially recruited women, two were excluded due to the missing reference standard. Both methods (TVS and MRI) had the same sensitivity and specificity in the detection of DE in the upper rectum (UpR) and rectosigmoid (RS) (UpR TVS and MRI sensitivity and specificity 100%; RS TVS and MRI sensitivity 94%; TVS and MRI specificity 84%). In the assessment of DE in the bladder (Bl), uterosacral ligaments (USL), vagina (V), rectovaginal septum (RVS), and overall pelvis (P), TVS had marginally higher specificity but lower sensitivity than MRI (Bl TVS sensitivity 89%, specificity 100%, MRI sensitivity 100%, specificity 95%; USL TVS sensitivity 74%, specificity 67%, MRI sensitivity 94%, specificity 60%; V TVS sensitivity 55%, specificity 100%, MRI sensitivity 73%, specificity 95%; RVS TVS sensitivity 67%, specificity 100%, MRI sensitivity 83%, specificity 93%; P TVS sensitivity 78%, specificity 97%, MRI sensitivity 91%, specificity 91%). No significant differences in diagnostic accuracy between TVS and MRI were observed except USL assessment (p=0.04) where MRI was significantly better and pouch of Douglas obliteration (p=0.04) where TVS was significantly better. Overall, there was a good agreement between reference standards and both index tests (TVS kappa value (κ) = 0.727 p≤0.001), MRI κ = 0.755 p=p≤0.001). Conclusion. We found that both imaging techniques had overall good agreement with the reference standard in the detection of deep pelvic endometriosis. This is the first study to date involving the IDEA consensus for ultrasound, its modified version for MRI, and intraoperative reporting of deep pelvic endometriosis in clinical practice.
PDF
