Hysterosalpingo-foam sonography versus hysterosalpingography during fertility work-up: an economic evaluation alongside a randomized controlled trial.

STUDY QUESTION: What are the costs and effects of tubal patency testing by hysterosalpingo-foam sonography (HyFoSy) compared to hysterosalpingography (HSG) in infertile women during the fertility work-up? SUMMARY ANSWER: During the fertility work-up, clinical management based on the test results of HyFoSy leads to slightly lower, though not statistically significant, live birth rates, at lower costs, compared to management based on HSG results. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Traditionally, tubal patency testing during the fertility work-up is performed by HSG. The FOAM trial, formally a non-inferiority study, showed that management decisions based on the results of HyFoSy resulted in a comparable live birth rate at 12 months compared to HSG (46% versus 47%; difference -1.2%, 95% CI: -3.4% to 1.5%; P = 0.27). Compared to HSG, HyFoSy is associated with significantly less pain, it lacks ionizing radiation and exposure to iodinated contrast medium. Moreover, HyFoSy can be performed by a gynaecologist during a one-stop fertility work-up. To our knowledge, the costs of both strategies have never been compared. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: We performed an economic evaluation alongside the FOAM trial, a randomized multicenter study conducted in the Netherlands. Participating infertile women underwent, both HyFoSy and HSG, in a randomized order. The results of both tests were compared and women with discordant test results were randomly allocated to management based on the results of one of the tests. The follow-up period was twelve months. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: We studied 1160 infertile women (18-41 years) scheduled for tubal patency testing. The primary outcome was ongoing pregnancy leading to live birth. The economic evaluation compared costs and effects of management based on either test within 12 months. We calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs): the difference in total costs and chance of live birth. Data were analyzed using the intention to treat principle. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Between May 2015 and January 2019, 1026 of the 1160 women underwent both tubal tests and had data available: 747 women with concordant results (48% live births), 136 with inconclusive results (40% live births), and 143 with discordant results (41% had a live birth after management based on HyFoSy results versus 49% with live birth after management based on HSG results). When comparing the two strategies-management based on HyfoSy results versus HSG results-the estimated chance of live birth was 46% after HyFoSy versus 47% after HSG (difference -1.2%; 95% CI: -3.4% to 1.5%). For the procedures itself, HyFoSy cost €136 and HSG €280. When costs of additional fertility treatments were incorporated, the mean total costs per couple were €3307 for the HyFoSy strategy and €3427 for the HSG strategy (mean difference €-119; 95% CI: €-125 to €-114). So, while HyFoSy led to lower costs per couple, live birth rates were also slightly lower. The ICER was €10 042, meaning that by using HyFoSy instead of HSG we would save €10 042 per each additional live birth lost. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: When interpreting the results of this study, it needs to be considered that there was a considerable uncertainty around the ICER, and that the direct fertility enhancing effect of both tubal patency tests was not incorporated as women underwent both tubal patency tests in this study. WIDER IMPLICATION OF THE FINDINGS: Compared to clinical management based on HSG results, management guided by HyFoSy leads to slightly lower live birth rates (though not statistically significant) at lower costs, less pain, without ionizing radiation and iodinated contrast exposure. Further research on the comparison of the direct fertility-enhancing effect of both tubal patency tests is needed. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): FOAM trial was an investigator-initiated study, funded by ZonMw, a Dutch organization for Health Research and Development (project number 837001504). IQ Medical Ventures provided the ExEm®-FOAM kits free of charge. The funders had no role in study design, collection, analysis, and interpretation of the data. K.D. reports travel-and speakers fees from Guerbet and her department received research grants from Guerbet outside the submitted work. H.R.V. received consulting-and travel fee from Ferring. A.M.v.P. reports received consulting fee from DEKRA and fee for an expert meeting from Ferring, both outside the submitted work. C.H.d.K. received travel fee from Merck. F.J.M.B. received a grant from Merck and speakers fee from Besins Healthcare. F.J.M.B. is a member of the advisory board of Merck and Ferring. J.v.D. reported speakers fee from Ferring. J.S. reports a research agreement with Takeda and consultancy for Sanofi on MR of motility outside the submitted work. M.v.W. received a travel grant from Oxford Press in the role of deputy editor for Human Reproduction and participates in a DSMB as independent methodologist in obstetrics studies in which she has no other role. B.W.M. received an investigator grant from NHMRC GNT1176437. B.W.M. reports consultancy for ObsEva, Merck, Guerbet, iGenomix, and Merck KGaA and travel support from Merck KGaA. V.M. received research grants from Guerbet, Merck, and Ferring and travel and speakers fees from Guerbet. The other authors do not report conflicts of interest. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: International Clinical Trials Registry Platform No. NTR4746.

Can hysterosalpingo-foam sonography replace hysterosalpingography as first-choice tubal patency test? A randomized non-inferiority trial.

STUDY QUESTION: Does hysterosalpingo-foam sonography (HyFoSy) lead to similar pregnancy outcomes, compared with hysterosalpingography (HSG), as first-choice tubal patency test in infertile couples? SUMMARY ANSWER: HyFoSy and HSG produce similar findings in a majority of patients and clinical management based on the results of either HyFoSy or HSG, leads to comparable pregnancy outcomes. HyFoSy is experienced as significantly less painful. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Traditionally, tubal patency testing during fertility work-up is performed by HSG. HyFoSy is an alternative imaging technique lacking ionizing radiation and iodinated contrast medium exposure which is less expensive than HSG. Globally, there is a shift towards the use of office-based diagnostic methods, such as HyFoSy. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: This multicentre, prospective, comparative study with a randomized design was conducted in 26 hospitals in The Netherlands. Participating women underwent both HyFoSy and HSG in randomized order. In case of discordant results, women were randomly allocated to either a management strategy based on HyFoSy or one based on HSG. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: We included infertile women between 18 and 41 years old who were scheduled for tubal patency testing during their fertility work-up. Women with anovulatory cycles not responding to ovulation induction, endometriosis, severe male infertility or a known iodine contrast allergy were excluded. The primary outcome for the comparison of the HyFoSy- and HSG-based strategies was ongoing pregnancy leading to live birth within 12 months after inclusion in an intention-to-treat analysis. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Between May 2015 and January 2019, 1026 women underwent HyFoSy and HSG. HyFoSy was inconclusive in 97 of them (9.5%), HSG was inconclusive in 30 (2.9%) and both were inconclusive in 9 (0.9%). In 747 women (73%) conclusive tests results were concordant. Of the 143/1026 (14%) with discordant results, 105 were randomized to clinical management based on the results of either HyFoSy or HSG. In this group, 22 of the 54 women (41%) allocated to management based on HyFoSy and 25 of 51 women (49%) allocated to management based on HSG had an ongoing pregnancy leading to live birth (Difference -8%; 95% CI: -27% to 10%). In total, clinical management based on the results of HyFoSy was estimated to lead to a live birth in 474 of 1026 women (46%) versus 486 of 1026 (47%) for management based on HSG (Difference -1.2%; 95% CI: -3.4% to 1.5%). Given the pre-defined margin of -2%, statistically significant non-inferiority of HyFoSy relative to HSG could not be demonstrated (P = 0.27). The mean pain score for HyFoSy on the 1-10 Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) was 3.1 (SD 2.2) and the mean VAS pain score for HSG was 5.4 (SD 2.5; P for difference < 0.001). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Since all women underwent both tubal patency tests, no conclusions on a direct therapeutic effect of tubal flushing could be drawn. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: HyFoSy or HSG produce similar tubal pathology findings in a majority of infertile couples and, where they differ, a difference in findings does not lead to substantial difference in pregnancy outcome, while HyFoSy is associated with significantly less pain. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): The FOAM study was an investigator-initiated study funded by ZonMw, The Netherlands organization for Health Research and Development (project number 837001504). ZonMw funded the whole project. IQ Medical Ventures provided the ExEm-foam® kits free of charge. The funders had no role in study design, collection, analysis and interpretation of the data. K.D. reports travel and speaker fees from Guerbet. F.J.M.B. reports personal fees as a member of the external advisory board for Merck Serono, The Netherlands, and a research support grant from Merck Serono, outside the submitted work. C.B.L. reports speakers' fee from Ferring in the past, and his department receives research grants from Ferring, Merck and Guerbet. J.S. reports a research agreement with Takeda on MR of motility outside the submitted work. M.V.W. reports leading The Netherlands Satellite of the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group. B.W.J.M. is supported by an NHMRC Investigator grant (GNT1176437). B.W.J.M. reports consultancy for Guerbet and research funding from Merck and Guerbet. V.M. reports non-financial support from IQ medicals ventures, during the conduct of the study; grants and personal fees from Guerbet, outside the submitted work. The other authors do not report conflicts of interest. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NTR4746/NL4587 (https://www.trialregister.nl). TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE: 19 August 2014. DATE OF FIRST PATIENT'S ENROLMENT: 7 May 2015.

Risk of complications in patients with conservatively managed ovarian tumours (IOTA5): a 2-year interim analysis of a multicentre, prospective, cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Ovarian tumours are usually surgically removed because of the presumed risk of complications. Few large prospective studies on long-term follow-up of adnexal masses exist. We aimed to estimate the cumulative incidence of cyst complications and malignancy during the first 2 years of follow-up after adnexal masses have been classified as benign by use of ultrasonography. METHODS: In the international, prospective, cohort International Ovarian Tumor Analysis Phase 5 (IOTA5) study, patients aged 18 years or older with at least one adnexal mass who had been selected for surgery or conservative management after ultrasound assessment were recruited consecutively from 36 cancer and non-cancer centres in 14 countries. Follow-up of patients managed conservatively is ongoing at present. In this 2-year interim analysis, we analysed patients who were selected for conservative management of an adnexal mass judged to be benign on ultrasound on the basis of subjective assessment of ultrasound images. Conservative management included ultrasound and clinical follow-up at intervals of 3 months and 6 months, and then every 12 months thereafter. The main outcomes of this 2-year interim analysis were cumulative incidence of spontaneous resolution of the mass, torsion or cyst rupture, or borderline or invasive malignancy confirmed surgically in patients with a newly diagnosed adnexal mass. IOTA5 is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01698632, and the central Ethics Committee and the Belgian Federal Agency for Medicines and Health Products, number S51375/B32220095331, and is ongoing. FINDINGS: Between Jan 1, 2012, and March 1, 2015, 8519 patients were recruited to IOTA5. 3144 (37%) patients selected for conservative management were eligible for inclusion in our analysis, of whom 221 (7%) had no follow-up data and 336 (11%) were operated on before a planned follow-up scan was done. Of 2587 (82%) patients with follow-up data, 668 (26%) had a mass that was already in follow-up at recruitment, and 1919 (74%) presented with a new mass at recruitment (ie, not already in follow-up in the centre before recruitment). Median follow-up of patients with new masses was 27 months (IQR 14-38). The cumulative incidence of spontaneous resolution within 2 years of follow-up among those with a new mass at recruitment (n=1919) was 20·2% (95% CI 18·4-22·1), and of finding invasive malignancy at surgery was 0·4% (95% CI 0·1-0·6), 0·3% (<0·1-0·5) for a borderline tumour, 0·4% (0·1-0·7) for torsion, and 0·2% (<0·1-0·4) for cyst rupture. INTERPRETATION: Our results suggest that the risk of malignancy and acute complications is low if adnexal masses with benign ultrasound morphology are managed conservatively, which could be of value when counselling patients, and supports conservative management of adnexal masses classified as benign by use of ultrasound. FUNDING: Research Foundation Flanders, KU Leuven, Swedish Research Council.

The FOAM study: is Hysterosalpingo foam sonography (HyFoSy) a cost-effective alternative for hysterosalpingography (HSG) in assessing tubal patency in subfertile women? Study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Tubal pathology is a causative factor in 20% of subfertile couples. Traditionally, tubal testing during fertility work-up is performed by hysterosalpingography (HSG). Hysterosalpingo-foam sonography (HyFoSy) is a new technique that is thought to have comparable accuracy as HSG, while it is less expensive and more patient friendly. HyFoSy would be an acceptable alternative for HSG, provided it has similar effectiveness in terms of patient outcomes. METHODS/DESIGN: We aim to compare the effectiveness and costs of management guided by HyFoSy or by HSG. Consenting women will undergo tubal testing by both HyFoSy and HSG in a randomized order during fertility work-up. The study group will consist of 1163 subfertile women between 18 and 41 years old who are scheduled for tubal patency testing during their fertility work-up. Women with anovulatory cycles not responding to ovulation induction, endometriosis, severe male subfertility or a known contrast (iodine) allergy will be excluded. We anticipate that 7 % (N = 82) of the participants will have discordant test results for HyFoSy and HSG. These participants will be randomly allocated to either a management strategy based on HyFoSy or a management strategy based on HSG, resulting in either a diagnostic laparoscopy with chromopertubation or a strategy that assumes tubal patency (intrauterine insemination or expectant management). The primary outcome is ongoing pregnancy leading to live birth within 12 months after randomization. Secondary outcomes are patient pain scores, time to pregnancy, clinical pregnancy, miscarriage rate, multiple pregnancy rate, preterm birth rate and number of additional treatments. Costs will be estimated by counting resource use and calculating unit prices. DISCUSSION: This trial will compare the effectiveness and costs of HyFoSy versus HSG in assessing tubal patency in subfertile women. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Dutch Trial Register (NTR 4746, http://www.trialregister.nl ). Date of registration: 19 August 2014.

Predicting the risk of malignancy in adnexal masses based on the Simple Rules from the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis group.

BACKGROUND: Accurate methods to preoperatively characterize adnexal tumors are pivotal for optimal patient management. A recent metaanalysis concluded that the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis algorithms such as the Simple Rules are the best approaches to preoperatively classify adnexal masses as benign or malignant. OBJECTIVE: We sought to develop and validate a model to predict the risk of malignancy in adnexal masses using the ultrasound features in the Simple Rules. STUDY DESIGN: This was an international cross-sectional cohort study involving 22 oncology centers, referral centers for ultrasonography, and general hospitals. We included consecutive patients with an adnexal tumor who underwent a standardized transvaginal ultrasound examination and were selected for surgery. Data on 5020 patients were recorded in 3 phases from 2002 through 2012. The 5 Simple Rules features indicative of a benign tumor (B-features) and the 5 features indicative of malignancy (M-features) are based on the presence of ascites, tumor morphology, and degree of vascularity at ultrasonography. Gold standard was the histopathologic diagnosis of the adnexal mass (pathologist blinded to ultrasound findings). Logistic regression analysis was used to estimate the risk of malignancy based on the 10 ultrasound features and type of center. The diagnostic performance was evaluated by area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (LR+), negative likelihood ratio (LR-), positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and calibration curves. RESULTS: Data on 4848 patients were analyzed. The malignancy rate was 43% (1402/3263) in oncology centers and 17% (263/1585) in other centers. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve on validation data was very similar in oncology centers (0.917; 95% confidence interval, 0.901-0.931) and other centers (0.916; 95% confidence interval, 0.873-0.945). Risk estimates showed good calibration. In all, 23% of patients in the validation data set had a very low estimated risk (<1%) and 48% had a high estimated risk (≥30%). For the 1% risk cutoff, sensitivity was 99.7%, specificity 33.7%, LR+ 1.5, LR- 0.010, PPV 44.8%, and NPV 98.9%. For the 30% risk cutoff, sensitivity was 89.0%, specificity 84.7%, LR+ 5.8, LR- 0.13, PPV 75.4%, and NPV 93.9%. CONCLUSION: Quantification of the risk of malignancy based on the Simple Rules has good diagnostic performance both in oncology centers and other centers. A simple classification based on these risk estimates may form the basis of a clinical management system. Patients with a high risk may benefit from surgery by a gynecological oncologist, while patients with a lower risk may be managed locally.

Prognostic value of serum HE4 levels and risk of ovarian malignancy algorithm scores at the time of ovarian cancer diagnosis.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study is to assess whether the pretreatment serum HE4 levels or the Risk of Ovarian Malignancy Algorithm (ROMA) scores at the time of initial diagnosis are associated with progression-free survival (PFS) and disease-specific survival (DSS) in patients with ovarian cancer receiving either primary debulking surgery or neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by interval debulking surgery. METHODS: A survival analysis of 101 cases of invasive ovarian cancer recruited in a previous diagnostic accuracy study was conducted from 2005 to 2009 at the University Hospital KU Leuven, Belgium. Serum HE4 levels (pM) and ROMA scores (%) were obtained before primary treatment. Dates of death were obtained by record linkage with patient hospital files. Progression was evaluated according to the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors. Adjusted hazards ratios (HRs) were estimated using multivariable Cox regression. RESULTS: Eighty patients (79%) with invasive ovarian cancer underwent primary debulking surgery, whereas 21 (21%) received neoadjuvant chemotherapy. The median DSS was 3.72 years (95% confidence interval [CI], 3.19-4.07). Fifty-two patients (51%) died of disease, and 74 patients (73%) had progressive disease during follow-up. On univariable analysis, elevated pretreatment HE4 levels and ROMA scores were related to worse prognosis. However, after the adjustment for classic prognostic variables, HE4 levels (log2-transformed) and ROMA scores were unrelated to DSS (log-2 HE4: adjusted HR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.84-1.21 and ROMA: adjusted HR per 10% increase, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.84-1.12) and PFS (log-2 HE4: adjusted HR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.84-1.13 and ROMA: adjusted HR per 10% increase, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.88-1.11). CONCLUSIONS: Pretreatment HE4 levels and ROMA scores are not independent prognostic factors for DSS and PFS after multivariable adjustment in patients with ovarian cancer.

A comparison between an ultrasound based prediction model (LR2) and the risk of ovarian malignancy algorithm (ROMA) to assess the risk of malignancy in women with an adnexal mass.

OBJECTIVE: The identification of novel biomarkers led to the development of the ROMA algorithm incorporating both HE4 and CA125 to predict malignancy in women with a pelvic mass. An ultrasound based prediction model (LR2) developed by the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis (IOTA) study offers better diagnostic performance than CA125 alone. In this study we compared the diagnostic accuracy between LR2 and ROMA. METHODS: This study included women with a pelvic mass scheduled for surgery and enrolled in a previous prospective diagnostic accuracy study. Experienced ultrasound examiners, general gynecologists and trainees supervised by one of the experts performed the preoperative transvaginal ultrasound examinations. Serum biomarkers were taken prior to surgery. Accuracy of LR2 and ROMA was estimated at completion of this study and did not form part of the decision making process. Final outcome was histology of removed tissues and surgical stage if relevant. RESULTS: In total 360 women were evaluated. 216 women had benign disease and 144 a malignancy. Overall test performance of LR2 (AUC 0.952) with 94% sensitivity and 82% specificity was significantly better than ROMA (AUC 0.893) with 84% sensitivity and 80% specificity. Difference in AUC was 0.059 (95% CI: 0.026-0.091; P-value 0.0004). Similar results were obtained when stratified for menopausal status. CONCLUSION: LR2 shows a better diagnostic performance than ROMA for the characterization of a pelvic mass in both pre- and postmenopausal women. These findings suggest that HE4 and CA125 may not play an important role in the diagnosis of ovarian cancer if good quality ultrasonography is available.

A multicenter prospective external validation of the diagnostic performance of IOTA simple descriptors and rules to characterize ovarian masses.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the diagnostic performance of the IOTA (International Ovarian Tumor Analysis group) (clinically oriented three-step strategy for preoperative characterization of ovarian masses when ultrasonography is performed by examiners with different background training and experience. METHODS: A 27-month prospective multicenter cross-sectional study was performed. 36 level II ultrasound examiners contributed in three UK hospitals. Transvaginal ultrasonography was performed using a standardized approach. Step one uses simple descriptors (SD), step two ultrasound simple rules (SR) and step three subjective assessment of ultrasound images (SA) by examiners. The final outcome was findings at surgery and the histological diagnosis of surgically removed masses. RESULTS: 1165 women with adnexal masses underwent transvaginal ultrasonography, 301 had surgery. Prevalence of malignancy was 31% (n=92). SD were able to classify 46% of the masses into benign or malignant (step one), with a sensitivity of 93% and specificity of 97%. Applying SD followed by SR to residual unclassified masses by SD enabled 89% of all masses (n=268) to be classified with a sensitivity 95% of and specificity of 95%. SA was then used to evaluate the rest of the masses. Compared to the risk of malignancy index (RMI), the sensitivity and specificity for the three-step (SD+SR+SA) strategy were 93% (95% CI: 86-97%) and 92% (95% CI: 87-95%) vs. 72% (95% CI: 62-80%) and 95% (95% CI: 91-97%) for RMI, respectively. CONCLUSION: The IOTA three-step strategy shows good test performance on external validation in the hands of ultrasonography examiners with different background training and experience. This performance is considerably better than the RMI.

External Validation of the Ovarian-Adnexal Reporting and Data System (O-RADS) Lexicon and the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis 2-Step Strategy to Stratify Ovarian Tumors Into O-RADS Risk Groups.

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). Data on race and ethnicity were not collected. A total of 3441 tumors (70%) were benign, 978 (20%) were malignant, and 486 (10%) had uncertain classification. Using the O-RADS lexicon resulted in 1.1% (24 of 2196) observed prevalence of malignancy in O-RADS 2, 4% (34 of 857) in O-RADS 3, 27% (246 of 904) in O-RADS 4, and 78% (732 of 939) in O-RADS 5; the corresponding results for the IOTA 2-step strategy were 0.9% (18 of 1984), 4% (58 of 1304), 30% (206 of 690), and 82% (756 of 927). At the 10% risk threshold (O-RADS 4-5), the O-RADS lexicon had 92% sensitivity (95% CI, 87%-96%) and 80% specificity (95% CI, 74%-85%), and the IOTA 2-step strategy had 91% sensitivity (95% CI, 84%-95%) and 85% specificity (95% CI, 80%-88%). Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this external diagnostic validation study suggest that both the O-RADS lexicon and the IOTA 2-step strategy can be used to stratify patients into risk groups. However, the observed malignancy rate in O-RADS 2 was not clearly below 1%.

Validation of models to diagnose ovarian cancer in patients managed surgically or conservatively: multicentre cohort study.

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 the best calibrated. Calibration of the estimated risks for the tumour subtypes was good for ADNEX irrespective of whether or not CA125 was included as a predictor. Overall clinical utility (net benefit) was highest for the ADNEX models and SRRisk, and lowest for RMI. For patients who received at least one follow-up scan (n=1958), overall area under the receiver operating characteristic curve ranged from 0.76 (95% confidence interval 0.66 to 0.84) for RMI to 0.89 (0.81 to 0.94) for ADNEX with CA125. CONCLUSIONS: Our study found the ADNEX models and SRRisk are the best models to distinguish between benign and malignant masses in all patients presenting with an adnexal mass, including those managed conservatively. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01698632.

[Acute colonic pseudo-obstruction after caesarean section; Ogilvie's syndrome]. / Bolle buik na sectio caesarea.

BACKGROUND: Acute pseudo-obstruction of the colon - also known as Ogilvie's syndrome - is a rare clinical presentation in obstetrics. The syndrome is seen more often following caesarean section than vaginal delivery. CASE DESCRIPTION: We present a 38-year-old primigravida who developed Ogilvie's syndrome following secondary caesarean section. Despite conservative management, due to a caecal dilation of over 12 centimetres and impending perforation of the caecum, a hemicolectomy was necessary. CONCLUSION: Ogilvie's syndrome is potentially life-threatening, certainly if perforation of the bowel occurs. Prompt diagnosis and treatment are essential to prevent severe morbidity.

Juvenile cystic adenomyosis: A case report and review of the literature.

This report describes a case of a uterine cystic myometrial lesion in a 16-year-old adolescent girl presenting with pelvic pain and severe progressively worsening dysmenorrhoea. Patient's symptoms, ultrasound and MRI were suggestive of juvenile cystic adenomyosis (JCA). Medical treatment and alcohol sclerotherapy had a moderate and transient effect. The symptoms rapidly recurred, and the lesion was successfully excised via laparoscopic surgery. The treatment of JCA depends on patient's age, the symptoms' severity and the cyst location. Although rare, juvenile cystic adenomyosis should be considered in young women with severe dysmenorrhoea.

The characteristic ultrasound features of specific types of ovarian pathology (review).

Characterizing ovarian masses enables patients with malignancy to be appropriately triaged for treatment by subspecialist gynecological oncologists, which has been shown to optimize care and improve survival. Furthermore, correctly classifying benign masses facilitates the selection of patients with ovarian pathology that may either not require intervention, or be suitable for minimal access surgery if intervention is required. However, predicting whether a mass is benign or malignant is not the only clinically relevant information that we need to know before deciding on appropriate treatment. Knowing the specific histology of a mass is becoming of increasing importance as management options become more tailored to the individual patient. For example predicting a mucinous borderline tumor gives the opportunity for fertility sparing surgery, and will highlight the need for further gastrointestinal assessment. For benign disease, predicting the presence of an endometrioma and possible deeply infiltrating endometriosis is important when considering both who should perform and the extent of surgery. An examiner's subjective assessment of the morphological and vascular features of a mass using ultrasonography has been shown to be highly effective for predicting whether a mass is benign or malignant. Many masses also have features that enable a reliable diagnosis of the specific pathology of a particular mass to be made. In this narrative review we aim to describe the typical morphological features seen on ultrasound of different adnexal masses and illustrate these by showing representative ultrasound images.

Imaging techniques for the pre-surgical diagnosis of adnexal tumours.

A correct diagnosis of any adnexal mass is essential to triage women to appropriate treatment pathways. Several imaging techniques are available that may be used to provide an assessment of a mass before treatment, such as transvaginal ultrasonography, magnetic resonance imaging, computed tomography, and positron emission tomography combined with computed tomography. In this chapter, we focus in depth on the role of transvaginal ultrasonography, as current evidence suggests it is the most appropriate initial imaging investigation to identify and characterise any mass if present in women suspected of having adnexal pathology. Subjective assessment by an experienced ultrasound examiner is the optimal approach to diagnose masses, followed by risk models and rules developed by the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis study. A group of tumours has proven difficult to classify with transvaginal ultrasound, and remain a diagnostic challenge for which accurate second-stage tests would be of value. Some studies suggest that magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), compared with other imaging modalities, may play a role in the assessment of this cohort of 'difficult to classify' adnexal masses. These studies, however, did not report quality of transvaginal ultrasonography (i.e. experience level of the examiner) and lacked uniformity in describing the criteria used to define such 'difficult' masses. On the basis of standardised terminology developed by the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis study to describe adnexal masses, as well as prediction models and rules developed in the course of the study, we propose new criteria that we can use to clearly define complex or 'difficult to classify' adnexal masses to focus the role for second-line imaging tests, such as conventional magnetic resonance imaging combined with dynamic contrast-enhanced or diffusion-weighted sequences on masses where further tests other than ultrasonography would be of value.

Presurgical diagnosis of adnexal tumours using mathematical models and scoring systems: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND Characterizing ovarian pathology is fundamental to optimizing management in both pre- and post-menopausal women. Inappropriate referral to oncology services can lead to unnecessary surgery or overly radical interventions compromising fertility in young women, whilst the consequences of failing to recognize cancer significantly impact on prognosis. By reflecting on recent developments of new diagnostic tests for preoperative identification of malignant disease in women with adnexal masses, we aimed to update a previous systematic review and meta-analysis. METHODS An extended search was performed in MEDLINE (PubMed) and EMBASE (OvidSp) from March 2008 to October 2013. Eligible studies provided information on diagnostic test performance of models, designed to predict ovarian cancer in a preoperative setting, that contained at least two variables. Study selection and extraction of study characteristics, types of bias, and test performance was performed independently by two reviewers. Quality was assessed using a modified version of the QUADAS assessment tool. A bivariate hierarchical random effects model was used to produce summary estimates of sensitivity and specificity with 95% confidence intervals or plot summary ROC curves for all models considered. RESULTS Our extended search identified a total of 1542 new primary articles. In total, 195 studies were eligible for qualitative data synthesis, and 96 validation studies reporting on 19 different prediction models met the predefined criteria for quantitative data synthesis. These models were tested on 26 438 adnexal masses, including 7199 (27%) malignant and 19 239 (73%) benign masses. The Risk of Malignancy Index (RMI) was the most frequently validated model. The logistic regression model LR2 with a risk cut-off of 10% and Simple Rules (SR), both developed by the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis (IOTA) study, performed better than all other included models with a pooled sensitivity and specificity, respectively, of 0.92 [95% CI 0.88-0.95] and 0.83 [95% CI 0.77-0.88] for LR2 and 0.93 [95% CI 0.89-0.95] and 0.81 [95% CI 0.76-0.85] for SR. A meta-analysis of centre-specific results stratified for menopausal status of two multicentre cohorts comparing LR2, SR and RMI-1 (using a cut-off of 200) showed a pooled sensitivity and specificity in premenopausal women for LR2 of 0.85 [95% CI 0.75-0.91] and 0.91 [95% CI 0.83-0.96] compared with 0.93 [95% CI 0.84-0.97] and 0.83 [95% CI 0.73-0.90] for SR and 0.44 [95% CI 0.28-0.62] and 0.95 [95% CI 0.90-0.97] for RMI-1. In post-menopausal women, sensitivity and specificity of LR2, SR and RMI-1 were 0.94 [95% CI 0.89-0.97] and 0.70 [95% CI 0.62-0.77], 0.93 [95% CI 0.88-0.96] and 0.76 [95% CI 0.69-0.82], and 0.79 [95% CI 0.72-0.85] and 0.90 [95% CI 0.84-0.94], respectively. CONCLUSIONS An evidence-based approach to the preoperative characterization of any adnexal mass should incorporate the use of IOTA Simple Rules or the LR2 model, particularly for women of reproductive age.

Evaluating the risk of ovarian cancer before surgery using the ADNEX model to differentiate between benign, borderline, early and advanced stage invasive, and secondary metastatic tumours: prospective multicentre diagnostic study.

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.

Key findings from the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis (IOTA) study: an approach to the optimal ultrasound based characterisation of adnexal pathology.

The principal aim of the IOTA project has been to develop approaches to the evaluation of adnexal pathology using ultrasound that can be transferred to all examiners. Creating models that use simple, easily reproducible ultrasound characteristics is one approach.