Risk of Ovarian Malignancy Algorithm and Pelvic Mass Score for the prediction of malignant ovarian tumors: a prospective comparative study.

Aim: Ovarian cancer is the seventh most common female cancer worldwide. Nevertheless, there is no available universal screening method for malignant ovarian masses. This study compares the value of the Risk of Ovarian Malignancy Algorithm (ROMA) and Pelvic Mass Score (PMS) scoring systems in the diagnosis of malignant ovarian masses. Material and methods: This prospective comparative study was conducted from March 2021 until April 2022. A total of 258 women diagnosed with ovarian mass and eligible for surgical intervention according to institutional guidelines were enrolled in the study. Ultrasound was performed for the assessment of masses, ascites and metastases, also color flow Doppler was done to measure the resistance index of the mass vasculature. Preoperative venous blood samples were collected to measure CA 125 and HE4. PMS and ROMA scoring systems were calculated for each patient. All women were subjected to a surgical intervention (according to applicable institutional guidelines), using either open or laparoscopic techniques. Histopathological examination of the removed specimens was done, and in line with the recognized gold standard, the results were compared with the pre-operative diagnosis of both scoring systems. Results: Both PMS and ROMA showed a high predictive probability for ovarian malignancies (AUC = 0.93, sensitivity = 83.3%, specificity = 90.37%; AUC = 0.91, sensitivity = 84.4%, specificity = 95.56%, respectively), yet no statistical significant difference was found between the two scoring systems (p = 0.353, 95% CI -0.025 to 0.070). Conclusions: Both PMS and ROMA seem to be promising scoring systems for discriminating benign from malignant ovarian masses, but more research is needed to determine the optimum diagnostic pathway, especially one yielding the least false-negative results.

Ovarian Reserve Following Laparoscopic Ovarian Cystectomy vs Cyst Deroofing for Endometriomas.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Because laparoscopic ovarian cystectomy of endometriomas is known to adversely impact patient ovarian reserve, the search for other techniques of surgical management is ongoing. The present study was undertaken to evaluate laparoscopic cyst deroofing as a feasible alternative. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective, randomized clinical trial (Canadian Task Force classification I). SETTING: University maternity hospital. PATIENTS: Women diagnosed with unilateral or bilateral ovarian endometriomas. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were managed with either laparoscopic ovarian cystectomy or cyst deroofing. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: A total of 122 women with endometriomas were randomized to either laparoscopic cystectomy (group 1) or laparoscopic cyst deroofing (group 2). The primary endpoint was the effect on ovarian reserve based on changes in anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) values. At 1 month postsurgery, anti-Müllerian hormone values were significantly decreased (p < .001) from preoperative values, from 4.25 ± 0.87 ng/mL to 1.66 ± 1.02 ng/mL in group 1 and from 4.2 ± 1.69 ng/mL to 2.15 ± 1.48 ng/mL in group 2. In addition, antral follicle count and ovarian volume decreased significantly (p < .001) in both groups by 1 month postsurgery. The decreases in these 3 parameters were more significant (p < .001) in group 1 than in group 2. CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic cyst deroofing of endometriomas appears to be a promising alternative to laparoscopic cystectomy, with less postoperative decrease in ovarian reserve; however, the higher rate of endometrioma recurrence warrants future clinical research to determine the optimal surgical management of endometriomas.

Rectal vs. sublingual misoprostol before cesarean section: double-blind, three-arm, randomized clinical trial.

PURPOSE: The commonest surgical procedure for women is cesarean delivery. Postpartum hemorrhage and intra-operative blood during cesarean delivery is a major concern to all obstetricians. This study was conducted to assess the efficacy of the adjuvant use of misoprostol and oxytocin in decreasing intra-operative blood loss in cesarean delivery. METHODS: This was a double-blinded randomized clinical trial including 636 term pregnant woman scheduled for cesarean section at Ain Shams University Maternity Hospital, Cairo, Egypt, between February 2013 and February 2014. Participants received either 400-µg misoprostol rectally or sublingually or placebo before cesarean section together with 5-IU oxytocin IV. The main outcome measure was intra-operative blood loss. Difference between the three groups was analyzed using one-way ANOVA test (for numeric variables) and Chi-square test (for categorical variables). P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: Intra-operative blood loss was higher in patients who did not receive misoprostol (Placebo Group) (295-1075 ml, 641.7 ± 135.7) than those who received it, regardless the route of administration, rectal (135-830 ml, 457.5 ± 140.7; P < 0.001), and sublingual (135-680 ml, 357.8 ± 129.7; P < 0.001). In addition, sublingual route was associated with significantly lower estimated intra-operative blood loss compared to rectal administration (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Misoprostol with oxytocin is an effective drug-combination for decreasing intra-operative blood loss during cesarian section with clinical superiority to sublingual over rectal route.