Search

In this study, we conducted a comparative analysis of demographic, histopathological, and sonographic characteristics between pre- and postmenopausal women diagnosed with endometrial cancer, while also examining sonographic and anthropometric features in ‘low’ and ‘intermediate/high-risk’ cases, stratified by menopausal status. Our analysis, based on data from the International Endometrial Tumor Analysis (IETA) 4 cohort comprising 1538 women (161 premenopausal, 1377 postmenopausal) with biopsy-confirmed endometrial cancer, revealed that premenopausal women, compared to their postmenopausal counterparts, exhibited lower parity (median 1, IQR 0–2 vs. 1, IQR 1–2, p = 0.001), a higher family history of colon cancer (16% vs. 7%, p = 0.001), and smaller waist circumferences (median 92 cm, IQR 82–108 cm vs. 98 cm, IQR 87–112 cm, p = 0.002). Premenopausal women more often had a regular endometrial–myometrial border (39% vs. 23%, p < 0.001), a visible endometrial midline (23% vs. 11%, p < 0.001), and undefined tumor (73% vs. 84%, p = 0.001). Notably, despite experiencing a longer duration of abnormal uterine bleeding (median 5 months, IQR 3–12 vs. 3 months, 2–6, p < 0.001), premenopausal women more often had ‘low’ risk disease (78% vs. 46%, p < 0.001). Among sonographic and anthropometric features, only an irregular endometrial–myometrial border was associated with ‘intermediate/high’ risk in premenopausal women. Conversely, in postmenopausal women, multiple features correlated with ‘intermediate/high’ risk disease. Our findings emphasize the importance of considering menopausal status when evaluating sonographic features in women with endometrial cancer.

The European Society of Gynaecological Oncology, the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) and the European Society of Pathology held a consensus conference (CC) on ovarian cancer on 15-16 June 2022 in Valencia, Spain. The CC panel included 44 experts in the management of ovarian cancer and pathology, an ESMO scientific advisor and a methodologist. The aim was to discuss new or contentious topics and develop recommendations to improve and harmonise the management of patients with ovarian cancer. Eighteen questions were identified for discussion under four main topics: (i) pathology and molecular biology, (ii) early-stage disease and pelvic mass in pregnancy, (iii) advanced stage (including older/frail patients) and (iv) recurrent disease. The panel was divided into four working groups (WGs) to each address questions relating to one of the four topics outlined above, based on their expertise. Relevant scientific literature was reviewed in advance. Recommendations were developed by the WGs and then presented to the entire panel for further discussion and amendment before voting. This manuscript focuses on the recommendation statements that reached a consensus, their voting results and a summary of evidence supporting each recommendation.

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

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.

Background Optimizing and ensuring the quality of surgical care is essential to improve the management and outcome of patients with cervical cancer. To develop a list of quality indicators for surgical treatment of cervical cancer that can be used to audit and improve clinical practice. Methods Quality indicators were developed using a four-step evaluation process that included a systematic literature search to identify potential quality indicators, in-person meetings of an ad hoc group of international experts, an internal validation process, and external review by a large panel of European clinicians and patient representatives. Results Fifteen structural, process, and outcome indicators were selected. Using a structured format, each quality indicator has a description specifying what the indicator is measuring. Measurability specifications are also detailed to define how the indicator will be measured in practice. Each indicator has a target which gives practitioners and health administrators a quantitative basis for improving care and organizational processes. Discussion Implementation of institutional quality assurance programs can improve quality of care, even in high-volume centers. This set of quality indicators from the European Society of Gynaecological Cancer may be a major instrument to improve the quality of surgical treatment of cervical cancer

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

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the inter-observer agreement in relation to observer experience for the assessment of local tumor extension in women with cervical cancer, using transvaginal ultrasound (US) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). METHODS: The observers comprised six US specialists with, and seven without previous experience of cervical cancer assessment, five experienced radiologists in pelvic MRI, and four less experienced radiology residents without previous MRI experience. The less experienced US observers, and all MRI observers underwent comprehensive training on assessment of cervical tumor extension while experienced US observers received written directives. All observers were assigned the same images from cervical cancer patients of all stages (n=60) for off-line evaluation on tumor detection, cervical stromal- (>1/3), and parametrial invasion. Inter-observer agreement was measured using Fleiss kappa, with 95% CI. RESULTS: Experienced and less experienced US observers had moderate agreement regarding tumor detection Fleiss κ [95% CI] (0.46 [0.40-0.53], and 0.46 [0.41-0.52]), stromal invasion (0.45 [0.38-0.51] and 0.53 [0.40-0.58]) and parametrial invasion (0.57 [0.51-0.64], and 0.44 [0.39-0.50]), respectively. Experienced and less experienced MRI observers had good κ [95% CI] (0.70 [0.62-0.78]) and moderate agreement (0.51 [0.41-0.62]), regarding tumor detection, good agreement regarding stromal invasion (0.80 [0.72-0.88] and 0.71 [0.61-0.81]) and parametrial invasion (0.69 [0.61-0.77] and 0.71[0.61-0.81]), respectively. CONCLUSION: The inter-observer agreement was moderate for US, and moderate - good for MRI regarding the assessment of local tumor extension. The level of inter-observer agreement was only associated with experience among US observers regarding parametrial invasion. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

In centers with access to high-end ultrasound machines and expert sonologists, ultrasound is used to detect metastases in regional lymph nodes from melanoma, breast cancer and vulvar cancer. There is, as yet, no international consensus on ultrasound assessment of lymph nodes in any disease or medical condition. The lack of standardized ultrasound nomenclature to describe lymph nodes makes it difficult to compare results from different ultrasound studies and to find reliable ultrasound features for distinguishing non-infiltrated lymph nodes from lymph nodes infiltrated by cancer or lymphoma cells. The Vulvar International Tumor Analysis (VITA) collaborative group consists of gynecologists, gynecologic oncologists and radiologists with expertise in gynecologic cancer, particularly in the ultrasound staging and treatment of vulvar cancer. The work herein is a consensus opinion on terms, definitions and measurements which may be used to describe inguinal lymph nodes on grayscale and color/power Doppler ultrasound. The proposed nomenclature need not be limited to the description of inguinal lymph nodes as part of vulvar cancer staging; it can be used to describe peripheral lymph nodes in general, as well as non-peripheral (i.e. parietal or visceral) lymph nodes if these can be visualized clearly. The association between the ultrasound features described here and histopathological diagnosis has not yet been established. VITA terms and definitions lay the foundations for prospective studies aiming to identify ultrasound features typical of metastases and other pathology in lymph nodes and studies to elucidate the role of ultrasound in staging of vulvar and other malignancies. © 2021 International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

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 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.