PL EN


Preferences help
enabled [disable] Abstract
Number of results
2017 | 15 | 3 | 194–217
Article title

Diagnostyka ultrasonograficzna guzów przydatków – praktyczna przydatność różnych schematów prognostycznych oceny ryzyka onkologicznego

Content
Title variants
EN
Ultrasound diagnosis of adnexal masses: the practical usefulness of various malignancy risk prediction models
Languages of publication
PL EN
Abstracts
EN
Adnexal masses are found in women of all ages, both pre- and postmenopausal. A large majority of them are benign and are diagnosed incidentally. Some cases, nonetheless, pose diagnostic and clinical challenges regarding the character of the lesion (whether benign or malignant). Correct preoperative classification is crucial for proper management both in terms of the scope and technique of surgery as well as the choice of the medical center where a given medical procedure is to be held (an gynecologic oncology center/a gynecologic ward). The usefulness of various imaging modalities (each characterized by a given level of sensitivity and specificity) for the diagnosis of ovarian cancer has been analyzed in multicenter studies. Studies by international groups, such as the IOTA, indicate the possibility of applying various diagnostic algorithms, relying on ultrasound assessment (Simple Rules model), complex mathematical models (LR1, LR2), biomarker measurements (ROMA, ROCA, OVERA), or a conjunction of clinical data, serum marker levels and ultrasound findings (ADNEX, RMI). All these models facilitate a differential diagnosis of ovarian tumors and help to triage patients into low-, moderate- or highrisk groups, thus warranting correct classification of patients for further management even when expert diagnosis is not feasible, and optimizing the quality of care provided. This study is a review of the available predictive formulas utilizing ultrasound findings, serum biomarker measurements and complex mathematical models as well as newly proposed diagnostic algorithms, based on the results of the most recent studies and guidelines of various gynecologic and obstetric societies. They may be helpful in day-to-day practice of gynecologists, aiding preoperative classification of adnexal masses as likely benign or malignant.
PL
Guzy przydatków występują u kobiet w różnym wieku, zarówno przed menopauzą, jak i po niej. Zdecydowana większość z nich ma charakter łagodny i jest rozpoznawana przypadkowo. Część zmian przydatków budzi jednak wątpliwości diagnostyczno-kliniczne co do charakteru zmiany (łagodna czy złośliwa). Właściwe rozpoznanie przedoperacyjne warunkuje odpowiednie postępowanie w odniesieniu zarówno do zakresu i techniki operacji, jak i ośrodka wykonującego daną procedurę medyczną (ośrodek ginekologii onkologicznej/oddział ginekologiczny). W wielośrodkowych badaniach dotyczących diagnostyki guzów przydatków analizowane są różne metody obrazowania, z których każda cechuje się odpowiednim poziomem czułości i specyficzności. Prace międzynarodowych grup, w tym grupy IOTA, wskazują na możliwość zastosowania różnych schematów diagnostycznych, opartych na ocenie obrazów ultrasonograficznych (model prostych reguł), złożonych modelach matematycznych (LR1, LR2), markerach biochemicznych (ROMA, ROCA, OVERA) czy wreszcie skojarzeniu danych klinicznych, markerów biochemicznych i cech ultrasonograficznych (ADNEX, RMI). Wszystkie te schematy mają na celu diagnostykę różnicową guzów i ustalenie przynależności do grup niskiego, pośredniego i wysokiego ryzyka. Dzięki takiemu postępowaniu nawet przy braku możliwości oceny dokonanej przez eksperta możliwa staje się właściwa kwalifikacja pacjentek, co z kolei optymalizuje jakość zapewnianej im opieki medycznej. Niniejsza praca ma charakter poglądowy i prezentuje dostępne metody diagnostyki obrazowej guzów przydatków, oparte na ultrasonografii, markerach biochemicznych oraz złożonych modelach matematycznych. Przedstawia również nowe propozycje schematów diagnostycznych guzów przydatków, oparte na wynikach najnowszych opracowań naukowych i wytycznych towarzystw ginekologów i położników. Mogą one być pomocne w codziennej praktyce lekarzy ginekologów w przedoperacyjnej klasyfikacji guzów jako prawdopodobnie łagodnych lub wysokiego ryzyka onkologicznego.
Discipline
Publisher

Year
Volume
15
Issue
3
Pages
194–217
Physical description
Contributors
author
  • Oddział Ginekologii iPołożnictwa, Uniwersyteckie Centrum Kliniczne Śląskiego Uniwersytetu Medycznego w Katowicach, Szpital Ligota – CSK, Katowice, Polska
  • Oddział Ginekologii iPołożnictwa, Śląski Instytut Matki i Noworodka, Chorzów, Polska
  • Oddział Ginekologiczno-Położniczy zPododdziałem Ginekologii Onkologicznej, Wojewódzki Szpital Specjalistyczny wTychach, Tychy, Polska
References
  • 1. Didkowska J, Wojciechowska U: Nowotwory złośliwe w Polsce w 2013 roku / Cancer in Poland in 2013. Krajowy Rejestr Nowotworów, Zakład Epidemiologii, Warszawa 2015. Available from: http://onkologia.org.pl/wp-content/uploads/BIUL2013.pdf.
  • 2. 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: e210–e226.
  • 3. Biggs WS, Marks ST: Diagnosis and management of adnexal masses. Am Fam Physician 2016; 93: 676–681.
  • 4. Wojciechowska U, Didkowska J. Zachorowania i zgony na nowotwory złośliwe w Polsce. Krajowy Rejestr Nowotworów, Centrum Onkologii – Instytut im. Marii Skłodowskiej-Curie. Available from: www.onkologia.org.pl/raporty/.
  • 5. Ertas S, Vural F, Tufekci EC et al.: Predictive value of malignancy risk indices for ovarian masses in premenopausal and postmenopausal women. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 2016; 17: 2177–2183.
  • 6. Geomini P, Kruitwagen R, Bremer GL et al.: The accuracy of risk scores in predicting ovarian malignancy: a systematic review. Obstet Gynecol 2009; 113: 384–394.
  • 7. Merz E, Weber G, Bahlmann F et al.: A new sonomorphologic scoring system (Mainz Score) for the assessment of ovarian tumors using transvaginal ultrasonography. Part I: A comparison between the scoring-system and the assessment by an experienced sonographer. Ultraschall Med 1998; 19: 99–107.
  • 8. Szczublewski P, Szpurek D, Moszyński R et al.: [Assessment of ultrasonography markers and CA125 usefulness in the diagnosis of ovarian cysts]. Ginekol Pol 2008; 79: 856–861.
  • 9. Abdalla N, Winiarek J, Bachanek M et al.: Clinical, ultrasound parameters and tumor marker-based mathematical models and scoring systems in pre-surgical diagnosis of adnexal tumors. Ginekol Pol 2016; 87: 824–829.
  • 10. Silvestre L, Martins WP, Candido-dos-Reis FJ: Limitations of three-dimensional power Doppler angiography in preoperative evaluation of ovarian tumors. J Ovarian Res 2015; 8: 47.
  • 11. Alcázar JL, García-Manero M, Laparte C et al.: OP21.04: 3D power Doppler for predicting ovarian cancer in vascularized complex adnexal masses. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2006; 28: 507.
  • 12. Alcázar JL, Rodriguez D: Three-dimensional power Doppler vascular sonographic sampling for predicting ovarian cancer in cystic-solid and solid vascularized masses. J Ultrasound Med 2009; 28: 275–281.
  • 13. Alcázar JL, Castillo G: Comparison of 2-dimensional and 3-dimensional power-Doppler imaging in complex adnexal masses for the prediction of ovarian cancer. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2005; 192: 807–812.
  • 14. Tailor A, Jurkovic D, Bourne TH et al.: A comparison of intratumoural indices of blood flow velocity and impedance for the diagnosis of ovarian cancer. Ultrasound Med Biol 1996; 22: 837–843.
  • 15. Smoleń A, Stachowicz N, Czekierdowski A: Evaluating the diagnostic accuracy of ultrasonography in differential diagnosis of adnexal tumours. Fam Med Prim Care Rev 2016; 18: 340–344.
  • 16. Abbas AM, Sheha AM, Salem MN et al.: Three-dimensional power Doppler ultrasonography in evaluation of adnexal masses. Middle East Fertil Soc J 2017: 22: 241–245.
  • 17. Czekierdowski A, Stachowicz N, Daniłoś J et al.: [Three-dimensional high-definition color Doppler flow imaging and vascular tumor biopsy to assess complex ovarian masses – a preliminary experience]. Prz Menopauzalny 2009; 6: 291–298.
  • 18. Hossain F, Karim MN, Rahman SM et al.: Preoperative detection of ovarian cancer by color Doppler ultrasonography and CA 125. Bangladesh Med Res Counc Bull; 36: 68–73.
  • 19. Amor F, Vaccaro H, Alcázar JL et al.: Gynecologic Imaging Reporting and Data System: a new proposal for classifying adnexal masses on the basis of sonographic findings. J Ultrasound Med 2009; 28: 285–291.
  • 20. Timmerman D, Testa AC, Bourne T et al.: Simple ultrasoundbased rules for the diagnosis of ovarian cancer. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2008; 31: 681–690.
  • 21. Timmerman D, Ameye L, Fischerova D et al.: Simple ultrasound rules to distinguish between benign and malignant adnexal masses before surgery: prospective validation by IOTA group. BMJ 2010; 341: c6839.
  • 22. Timmerman D, Van Calster 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: 424–437.
  • 23. Ameye L, Timmerman D, Valentin L et al.: Clinically oriented three-step strategy for assessment of adnexal pathology. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2012; 40: 582–591.
  • 24. Alcázar JL, Pascual MA, Graupera B et al.: External validation of IOTA simple descriptors and simple rules for classifying adnexal masses. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2016; 48: 397–402.
  • 25. Tailor A, Jurkovic D, Bourne TH et al.: Sonographic prediction of malignancy in adnexal masses using multivariate logistic regression analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1997; 10: 41–47.
  • 26. Timmerman D, Verrelst H, Bourne TH et al.: Artificial neural network models for the preoperative discrimination between malignant and benign adnexal masses. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1999; 13: 17–25.
  • 27. Timmerman D, Bourne TH, Tailor A et al.: A comparison of methods for preoperative discrimination between malignant and benign adnexal masses: the development of a new logistic regression model. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1999; 181: 57–65.
  • 28. Timmerman D, Testa AC, Bourne T et al.; International Ovarian Tumor Analysis Group: Logistic regression model to distinguish between the benign and malignant adnexal mass before surgery: a multicenter study by the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis Group. J Clin Oncol 2005; 23: 8794–8801.
  • 29. Meys EM, Kaijser J, Kruitwagen RF et al.: Subjective assessment versus ultrasound models to diagnose ovarian cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Cancer 2016; 58: 17–29.
  • 30. Kaijser J: Towards an evidence-based approach for diagnosis and management of adnexal masses: findings of the International Ovarian Tumour Analysis (IOTA) studies. Facts Views Vis Obgyn 2015; 7: 42–59.
  • 31. Jacobs I, Oram D, Fairbanks J et al.: A risk of malignancy index incorporating CA 125, ultrasound and menopausal status for the accurate preoperative diagnosis of ovarian cancer. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1990; 97: 922–929.
  • 32. Al-Musalhi K, Al-Kindi M, Ramadhan F et al.: Validity of cancer antigen-125 (CA-125) and risk of malignancy index (RMI) in the diagnosis of ovarian cancer. Oman Med J 2015; 30: 428–434.
  • 33. Tingulstad S, Hagen B, Skjeldestad FE et al.: Evaluation of a risk of malignancy index based on serum CA125, ultrasound findings and menopausal status in the pre-operative diagnosis of pelvic masses. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1996; 103: 826–831.
  • 34. Tingulstad S, Hagen B, Skjeldestad FE et al.: The risk-of-malignancy index to evaluate potential ovarian cancers in local hospitals. Obstet Gynecol 1999; 93: 448–452.
  • 35. Yamamoto Y, Yamada R, Oguri H et al.: Comparison of four malignancy risk indices in the preoperative evaluation of patients with pelvic masses. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2009; 144: 163–167.
  • 36. Aktürk E, Karaca RE, Alanbay İ et al.: Comparison of four malignancy risk indices in the detection of malignant ovarian masses. J Gynecol Oncol 2011; 22: 177–182.
  • 37. Yamamoto Y, Tsuchida A, Ushiwaka T et al.: Comparison of 4 risk-of-malignancy indexes in the preoperative evaluation of patients with pelvic masses: a prospective study. Clinical Ovarian and Other Gynecologic Cancer 2014; 7: 8–12.
  • 38. Van Calster B, Van Hoorde K, Valentin L et al.; International Ovarian Tumour Analysis Group: Evaluating the risk of ovarian cancer before surgery using the ADNEX model to differentiate between benign, borderline, early and advanced stageinvasive, and secondary metastatic tumours: prospective multicentre diagnostic study. BMJ 2014; 349: g5920.
  • 39. Meys EMJ, Jeelof LS, Achten NMJ et al.: Estimating risk of malignancy in adnexal masses: external validation of the ADNEX model and comparison with other frequently used ultrasound methods. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2017; 49: 784–792.
  • 40. Szubert S, Wojtowicz A, Moszynski R et al.: External validation of the IOTA ADNEX model performed by two independent gynecologic centers. Gynecol Oncol 2016; 142: 490–495.
  • 41. Timmerman D, Valentin L, Bourne TH et al.; International Ovarian Tumor Analysis (IOTA) Group: Terms, definitions and measurements to describe the sonographic features of adnexal tumors: a consensus opinion from the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis (IOTA) Group. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2000; 16: 500–505.
  • 42. 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.
  • 43. Timmerman D, Schwärzler P, Collins WP et al.: Subjective assessment of adnexal masses with the use of ultrasonography: an analysis of interobserver variability and experience. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1999; 13: 11–16.
  • 44. Manegold-Brauer G, Buechel J, Knipprath-Mészaros A et al.: Improved detection rate of ovarian cancer using a 2-step triage model of the risk of malignancy index and expert sonography in an outpatient screening setting. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2016; 26: 1062–1069.
  • 45. Timmerman D, Van Calster B, Testa AC et al.: Ovarian cancer prediction in adnexal masses using ultrasound-based logistic regression models: a temporal and external validation study by the IOTA group. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2010; 36: 226–234.
  • 46. Moore RG, McMeekin DS, Brown AK et al.: A novel multiple marker bioassay utilizing HE4 and CA125 for the prediction of ovarian cancer in patients with a pelvic mass. Gynecol Oncol 2009; 112: 40–46.
  • 47. Michalak M, Gąsiorowska E, Markwitz EN: Diagnostic value of CA125, HE4, ROMA and logistic regression model in pelvic mass diagnostics – our experience. Ginekol Pol 2015; 86: 256–261.
  • 48. Dayyani F, Uhlig S, Colson B et al.: Diagnostic performance of risk of ovarian malignancy algorithm against CA125 and HE4 in connection with ovarian cancer: a meta-analysis. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2016; 26: 1586–1593.
  • 49. Kaijser J, Van Gorp T, Smet ME et al.: Are serum HE4 or ROMA scores useful to experienced examiners for improving characterization of adnexal masses after transvaginal ultrasonography? Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2014; 43: 89–97.
  • 50. Coleman RL, Herzog TJ, Chan DW et al.: Validation of a secondgeneration multivariate index assay for malignancy risk of adnexal masses. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2016; 215: 82.e1–82.e11.
  • 51. Nolen MB, Lokshin AE: Ovarian cancer screening and early detection. In: Farghaly SA (ed.): Advances in Diagnosis and Management of Ovarian Cancer. Springer, New York 2014.
  • 52. Ware Miller R, Smith A, DeSimone CP et al.: Performance of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists’ ovarian tumor referral guidelines with a multivariate index assay. Obstet Gynecol 2011; 117: 1298–1306.
  • 53. Longoria TC, Ueland FR, Zhang Z et al.: Clinical performance of a multivariate index assay for detecting early-stage ovarian cancer. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2014; 210: 78.e1–78.e9.
  • 54. Gostout BS, Brewer MA: Guidelines for referral of the patient with an adnexal mass. Clin Obstet Gynecol 2006; 49: 448–458.
  • 55. Dearking AC, Aletti GD, McGree ME et al.: How relevant are ACOG and SGO guidelines for referral of adnexal mass? Obstet Gynecol 2007; 110: 841–848.
  • 56. Usha Menon, Andy Ryan, Jatinderpal Kalsi et al.: Risk algorithm using serial biomarker measurements doubles the number of screen-detected cancers compared with a single-threshold rule in the United Kingdom Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening. J Clin Oncol 2015; 33: 2062–2071.
  • 57. Menon U, Gentry-Maharaj A, Hallett R et al.: Sensitivity and specificity of multimodal and ultrasound screening for ovarian cancer, and stage distribution of detected cancers: results of the prevalence screen of the UK Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening (UKCTOCS). Lancet Oncol 2009; 10: 327–340.
  • 58. Jacobs IJ, Menon U, Ryan A et al.: Ovarian cancer screening and mortality in the UK Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening (UKCTOCS): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2016; 387: 945–956.
  • 59. Yeoh M: Investigation and management of an ovarian mass. Aust Fam Physician 2015; 44: 48–52.
  • 60. Cerci ZC, Sakarya DK, Yetimalar MH et al.: Computed tomography as a predictor of the extent of the disease and surgical outcomes in ovarian cancer. Ginekol Pol 2016; 87: 326–332.
  • 61. The Management of Ovarian Cysts in Postmenopausal Women. RCOG Green-top Guideline No. 34. Available from: https:// www.rcog.org.uk/globalassets/documents/guidelines/green-topguidelines/gtg_34.pdf [cited: 26 December 2016].
  • 62. Buys SS, Partridge E, Black A et al.; PLCO Project Team: Effect of screening on ovarian cancer mortality: the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Randomized Controlled Trial. JAMA 2011; 305: 2295–2303.
  • 63. Pinsky PF, Yu K, Kramer BS et al.: Extended mortality results for ovarian cancer screening in the PLCO trial with median 15years follow-up. Gynecol Oncol 2016; 143: 270–275.
  • 64. Gellhaus T: ACOG Statement on FDA Safety Communication on Ovarian Cancer Screening Tests. Available from: http://www. acog.org/About-ACOG/News-Room/Statements/2016/ACOGStatement-on-FDA-Safety-Communication-on-Ovarian-Cancer-Screening-Tests [cited: 26 December 2016].
  • 65. Kaijser J, Sayasneh A, Van Hoorde 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: 449–462.
  • 66. Zając A, Stachowiak G, Jędrzejczyk S et al.: [Adnexal tumours in reproductive period and after menopause]. Prz Menopauzalny 2011; 5: 386–392.
  • 67. Doubeni CA, Doubeni AR, Myers AE: Diagnosis and management of ovarian cancer. Am Fam Physician 2016; 93: 937–944.
  • 68. Liu JH, Zanotti KM: Management of the adnexal mass. Obstet Gynecol 2011; 117: 1413–1428.
  • 69. Woźniak S, Szkodziak P, Czuczwar P et al.: [Ovarian tumor in women of the late childbearing age: how to assess the risk of cancer]. Prz Menopauzalny 2013; 1: 78–82.
  • 70. Moszynski R, Zywica P, Wojtowicz A et al.: Menopausal status strongly influences the utility of predictive models in differential diagnosis of ovarian tumors: an external validation of selected diagnostic tools. Ginekol Pol 2014; 85: 892–899.
  • 71. Basta A, Bidziński M, Bieńkiewicz A et al.: Zalecenia Polskiego Towarzystwa Ginekologii Onkologicznej dotyczące diagnostyki i leczenia raka jajnika. Curr Gynecol Oncol 2017; 15: 5–23.
  • 72. Czekierdowski A, Koneczny J, Borowski D et al.: OC14.07: The predictive value of subjective assessment, IOTA simple rules (SR), IOTA logistic regression model 1 (LR1), Alcazar’s GI-RADS model and a risk of malignancy (RMI) model in the preoperative discrimination of adnexal masses. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2013; 42 (Suppl 1): 29.
Document Type
article
Publication order reference
Identifiers
YADDA identifier
bwmeta1.element.psjd-3754b974-72b5-443a-a7a8-7642abc536da
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.