Ultrasonographic evaluation of ovarian mass for predicting malignancy in pregnant women

Evaluating use of two-step International Ovarian Tumor Analysis strategy to classify adnexal masses identified in pregnancy: pilot study

OBJECTIVES

The primary aim was to validate the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis (IOTA) benign simple descriptors (BDs) followed by the Assessment of Different NEoplasias in the adneXa (ADNEX) model, if BDs cannot be applied, in a two-step strategy to classify adnexal masses identified during pregnancy. The secondary aim was to describe the natural history of adnexal masses during pregnancy.

METHODS

This was a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data from women with an adnexal mass identified on ultrasonography during pregnancy between 2017 and 2022 at Queen Charlotte's and Chelsea Hospital, London, UK. Clinical and ultrasound data were extracted from medical records and ultrasound software. Adnexal masses were classified and managed according to expert subjective assessment (SA). Borderline ovarian tumors (BOTs) were classified as malignant. BDs were applied retrospectively to classify adnexal masses, and if BDs were not applicable, the ADNEX model (using a risk- of-malignancy threshold ≥ 10%) was used, in a two-step strategy. The reference standard was histology (where available) or expert SA at the postnatal ultrasound scan.

RESULTS

A total of 291 women with a median age of 33 (interquartile range (IQR), 29-36) years presented with an adnexal mass during pregnancy, at a median gestational age of 12 (IQR, 8-17) weeks. Of those, 267 (91.8%) were followed up to the postnatal period. Based on the reference standard, 4.1% (11/267) of adnexal masses were classified as malignant (all BOTs) and 95.9% (256/267) as benign. BDs were applicable in 68.9% (184/267) of adnexal masses; of these, only one (0.5%) BOT was misclassified as benign. The ADNEX model was used to classify the 83 residual masses and misclassified 3/10 (30.0%) BOTs as benign and 25/73 (34.2%) benign masses as malignant, of which 13/25 (52.0%) were classified as decidualized endometrioma on expert SA. The two-step strategy had a specificity of 90.2%, sensitivity of 63.6%, negative predictive value of 98.3% and positive predictive value of 21.9%. A total of 56 (21.0%) women underwent surgical intervention: four (1.5%) as an emergency during pregnancy, four (1.5%) electively during Cesarean section and 48 (18.0%) postnatally. During follow-up, 64 (24.0%) adnexal masses resolved spontaneously. Cyst-related complications occurred in four (1.5%) women during pregnancy (ovarian torsion, n = 2; cyst rupture, n = 2) and six (2.2%) women in the postnatal period (all ovarian torsion). Overall, 196/267 (73.4%) women had a persistent adnexal mass at postnatal ultrasound. Presumed decidualization occurred in 31.1% (19/61) of endometriomas and had resolved in 89.5% (17/19) by the first postnatal ultrasound scan.

CONCLUSIONS

BDs apply to most adnexal masses during pregnancy. However, the small number of malignant tumors in this cohort (4.1%) restricted the evaluation of the ADNEX model, so expert SA should be used to classify adnexal masses during pregnancy when BDs do not apply. A larger multicenter prospective study is required to evaluate the use of the ADNEX model to classify adnexal masses during pregnancy. Our data suggest that most adnexal masses can be managed expectantly during pregnancy, given the high rate of spontaneous resolution and low risk of complications. © 2024 The Author(s). Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

ADNEX risk prediction model for diagnosis of ovarian cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis of external validation studies

Objectives

To conduct a systematic review of studies externally validating the ADNEX (Assessment of Different Neoplasias in the adnexa) model for diagnosis of ovarian cancer and to present a meta-analysis of its performance.

Design

Systematic review and meta-analysis of external validation studies.

Data sources

Medline, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, and Europe PMC, from 15 October 2014 to 15 May 2023.

Eligibility criteria for selecting studies

All external validation studies of the performance of ADNEX, with any study design and any study population of patients with an adnexal mass. Two independent reviewers extracted the data. Disagreements were resolved by discussion. Reporting quality of the studies was scored with the TRIPOD (Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis) reporting guideline, and methodological conduct and risk of bias with PROBAST (Prediction model Risk Of Bias Assessment Tool). Random effects meta-analysis of the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), sensitivity and specificity at the 10% risk of malignancy threshold, and net benefit and relative utility at the 10% risk of malignancy threshold were performed.

Results

47 studies (17 007 tumours) were included, with a median study sample size of 261 (range 24-4905). On average, 61% of TRIPOD items were reported. Handling of missing data, justification of sample size, and model calibration were rarely described. 91% of validations were at high risk of bias, mainly because of the unexplained exclusion of incomplete cases, small sample size, or no assessment of calibration. The summary AUC to distinguish benign from malignant tumours in patients who underwent surgery was 0.93 (95% confidence interval 0.92 to 0.94, 95% prediction interval 0.85 to 0.98) for ADNEX with the serum biomarker, cancer antigen 125 (CA125), as a predictor (9202 tumours, 43 centres, 18 countries, and 21 studies) and 0.93 (95% confidence interval 0.91 to 0.94, 95% prediction interval 0.85 to 0.98) for ADNEX without CA125 (6309 tumours, 31 centres, 13 countries, and 12 studies). The estimated probability that the model has use clinically in a new centre was 95% (with CA125) and 91% (without CA125). When restricting analysis to studies with a low risk of bias, summary AUC values were 0.93 (with CA125) and 0.91 (without CA125), and estimated probabilities that the model has use clinically were 89% (with CA125) and 87% (without CA125).

Conclusions

The results of the meta-analysis indicated that ADNEX performed well in distinguishing between benign and malignant tumours in populations from different countries and settings, regardless of whether the serum biomarker, CA125, was used as a predictor. A key limitation was that calibration was rarely assessed.

Systematic review registration

PROSPERO CRD42022373182.

Ultrasound Features and Clinical Outcome of Patients with Ovarian Masses Diagnosed during Pregnancy: Experience of Single Gynecological Ultrasound Center

(1) Background: The number of adnexal masses detected during pregnancy has increased due to the use of first-trimester screening and increasingly advanced maternal age. Despite their low risk of malignancy, other risks associated with these masses include torsion, rupture and labor obstruction. Correct diagnosis and management are needed to guarantee both maternal and fetal safety. Adnexal masses may be troublesome to classify during pregnancy due to the increased volume of the uterus and pregnancy-related hormonal changes. Management should be based on ultrasound examination to provide the best treatment. The aim of this study was to describe the ultrasound features of ovarian masses detected during pregnancy and to optimize and personalize their management with the expertise of gynecologists, oncologists and sonographers. (2) Methods: Clinical, ultrasound, histological parameters and type of management (surveillance vs. surgery) were retrospectively retrieved. Patient management, perinatal outcomes and follow-up were also evaluated. (3) Results: according to the literature, these masses are most frequently benign, ultrasound follow-up is the best management, and obstetric outcomes are not considerably influenced by the presence of adnexal masses. (4) Conclusions: the management of patients with ovarian masses detected during pregnancy should be based on ultrasound examination, and a centralization in referral centers for ovarian masses should be considered.

Adnexal masses during pregnancy: diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis

Adnexal masses are identified in pregnant patients at a rate of 2 to 20 in 1000, approximately 2 to 20 times more frequently than in the age-matched general population. The most common types of adnexal masses in pregnancy requiring surgical management are dermoid cysts (32%), endometriomas (15%), functional cysts (12%), serous cystadenomas (11%), and mucinous cystadenomas (8%). Approximately 2% of adnexal masses in pregnancy are malignant. Although most adnexal masses in pregnancy can be safely observed and approximately 70% spontaneously resolve, a minority of cases warrant surgical intervention because of symptoms, risk of torsion, or suspicion of malignancy. Ultrasound is the mainstay of evaluation of adnexal masses in pregnancy because of accuracy, safety, and availability. Several ultrasound mass scoring systems, including the Sassone, Lerner, International Ovarian Tumor Analysis Simple Rules, and International Ovarian Tumor Analysis Assessment of Different NEoplasias in the adneXa scoring systems have been validated specifically in pregnant populations. Decisions regarding expectant vs surgical management of adnexal masses in pregnancy must balance the risks of torsion or malignancy with the likelihood of spontaneous resolution and the risks of surgery. Laparoscopic surgery is preferred over open surgery when possible because of consistently demonstrated shorter hospital length of stay and less postoperative pain and some data demonstrating shorter operative time, lower blood loss, and lower risks of fetal loss, preterm birth, and low birthweight. The best practices for laparoscopic surgery during pregnancy include left lateral decubitus positioning after the first trimester of pregnancy, port placement with respect to uterine size and pathology location, insufflation pressure of less than 12 to 15 mm Hg, intraoperative maternal capnography, pre- and postoperative fetal heart rate and contraction monitoring, and appropriate mechanical and chemical thromboprophylaxes. Although planning surgery for the second trimester of pregnancy generally affords time for mass resolution while optimizing visualization with regards to uterine size and pathology location, necessary surgery should not be delayed because of gestational age. When performed at a facility with appropriate obstetrical, anesthetic, and neonatal support, adnexal surgery in pregnancy generally results in excellent outcomes for pregnant patients and fetuses.

Value of Assessment of Different Neoplasias in the Adnexa in the Differential Diagnosis of Malignant Ovarian Tumor and Benign Ovarian Tumor: A Meta-analysis

To evaluate the accuracy of the assessment of different neoplasias in the adnexa (ADNEX) model in the differential diagnosis of malignant and benign ovarian tumors, the optimal cutoff value and the accuracy in diagnosing ovarian tumors at different stages, PubMed, Web of Science and Cochrane Library databases were retrieved to search literature with per-patient analysis until publication of the last study in November 2021. STATA 14.1, Meta-Disc 1.4 and Revman software 5.3 were used in the performance of meta-analysis. To explore sources of heterogeneity, a subgroup analysis was conducted for the ADNEX model. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratio, positive likelihood, negative likelihood ratio and area under the summary receiver operating characteristic curve were 0.91 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.89-0.93), 0.84 (95% CI: 0.80-0.88), 55.55 (95% CI: 40.47-76.26), 5.71 (95% CI: 4.49-7.26), 0.10 (95% CI: 0.08-0.13) and 0.94 (95% CI: 0.92-0.96) in differentiating benign and malignant ovarian tumors, respectively. The area under the curve in identifying benign, borderline, stage I and stages II-IV were 0.93, 0.73, 0.27 and 0.92. The ADNEX model had high diagnostic performance was influential in the diagnosis of benign and stage II-IV ovarian tumors.

Role of Ultrasound in the Assessment and Differential Diagnosis of Pelvic Pain in Pregnancy

Pelvic pain (PP) is common in pregnant women and can be caused by several diseases, including obstetrics, gynaecological, gastrointestinal, genitourinary, and vascular disorders. Timely and accurate diagnosis as well as prompt treatment are crucial for the well-being of the mother and foetus. However, these are very challenging. It should be considered that the physiological changes occurring during pregnancy may confuse the diagnosis. In this setting, ultrasound (US) represents the first-line imaging technique since it is readily and widely available and does not use ionizing radiations. In some cases, US may be conclusive for the diagnosis (e.g., if it detects no foetal cardiac activity in suspected spontaneous abortion; if it shows an extrauterine gestational sac in suspected ectopic pregnancy; or if it reveals a dilated, aperistaltic, and blind-ending tubular structure arising from the cecum in suspicious of acute appendicitis). Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), overcoming some limits of US, represents the second-line imaging technique when an US is negative or inconclusive, to detect the cause of bowel obstruction, or to characterize adnexal masses.

Ultrasonographic ovarian mass scoring system for predicting malignancy in pregnant women with ovarian mass

During routine antenatal ultrasound examinations, an ovarian mass can be found incidentally. In clinical practice, the differential diagnosis between benign and malignant ovarian masses is essential for planning further management. Ultrasound imaging has become the most popular diagnostic tool during pregnancy, with the recent development of ultrasonography. In non-pregnant women, several methods have been used to predict malignant ovarian masses before surgery. The International Ovarian Tumor Analysis (IOTA) group reported several scoring systems, such as the IOTA simple rules, IOTA logistic regression models, and IOTA assessment of different NEoplasias in the adneXa. Other researchers have also evaluated the malignancy of ovarian masses before surgery using scoring systems such as the Sassone score, pelvic mass score, DePriest score, Lerner score, and Ovarian-Adnexal Reporting and Data System. These researchers suggested specific features of ovarian masses that can be used for differential diagnosis, including size, proportion of solid tissue, papillary projections, inner wall structure, locules, wall thickness, septa, echogenicity, acoustic shadows, and presence of ascites. Although these factors can also be measured in pregnant women using ultrasound, only a few studies have applied ovarian scoring systems in pregnant women. In this article, we reviewed various scoring systems for predicting malignant tumors of the ovary and determined whether they can be applied to pregnant women.