Conservative Management of Asymptomatic Adnexal Masses Classified as Benign by the IOTA ADNEX Model: A Prospective Multicenter Portuguese Study
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
3. Results
4. Discussion and Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- May, T.; Oza, A. Conservative management of adnexal masses. Lancet Oncol. 2019, 20, 326–327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Practice bulletin No. 174: Evaluation and management of adnexal masses. Obstet. Gynecol. 2016, 128, e210–e226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Froyman, W.; Landolfo, C.; Cock, B.; Wynants, L.; Sladkevicius, P.; Testa, A.C.; Van Holsbeke, C.; Domali, E.; Fruscio, R.; Epstein, E.; et al. Risk of complications in patients with conservatively managed ovarian tumours (IOTA5): A 2-year interim analysis of a multicentre, prospective, cohort study. Lancet Oncol. 2019, 20, 448–458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Henderson, J.T.; Webber, E.M.; Sawaya, G.F. Screening for ovarian cancer: Updated evidence report and systematic review for the US preventive services task force. JAMA 2018, 319, 595–606. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Jacobs, I.J.; Menon, U.; Ryan, A.; Gentry-Maharaj, A.; Burnell, M.; Kalsi, J.; Amso, N.N.; Apostolidou, S.; Benjamin, E.; Cruickshank, D.; 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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Buys, S.S.; Partridge, E.; Black, A.; Johnson, C.; Lamerato, L.; Isaacs, C.; Reding, D.J.; Greenlee, R.T.; Yokochi, L.A.; Kessel, B.; et al. Effect of screening on ovarian cancer mortality: The prostate, lung, colorectal and ovarian (PLCO) cancer screening randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2011, 305, 2295–2303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Menon, U.; Gentry-Maharaj, A.; Burnell, M.; Singh, N.; Ryan, R.; Karpinskyj, C.; Carlino, G.; Taylor, J.; Massingham, S.K.; Raikou, M.; et al. Ovarian cancer population screening and mortality after long-term follow-up in the UK collaborative trial of ovarian cancer screening (UKCTOCS): A randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2021, 397, 2182–2193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Glanc, P.; Benacerraf, B.; Bourne, T.; Brown, D.; Coleman, B.; Crum, C.; Dodge, J.; Levine, D.; Pavlik, E.; Timmerman, D.; et al. First international consensus report on adnexal masses: Management recommendations. J. Ultrasound Med. 2017, 36, 849–863. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Reade, C.J.; Riva, J.J.; Busse, J.; Goldsmith, C.H.; Elit, L. Risks and benefits of screening asymptomatic women for ovarian cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Gynecol. Oncol. 2013, 130, 674–681. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Timmerman, D.; Planchamp, F.; Bourne, T.; Landolfo, C.; Bois, A.; Chiva, L. ESGO/ISUOG/IOTA/ESGE consensus statement on preoperative diagnosis of ovarian tumors. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 2021, 58, 148–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Education and Pratical 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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Yazbek, J.; Raju, S.; Ben-Nagi, J.; Holland, T.; Hillaby, K.; Jurkovic, D. Effect of quality of gynaecological ultrasonography on management of patients with suspected ovarian cancer: A randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol. 2008, 9, 124–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Timmerman, D.; Valentin, T.; Bourne, T.H.; Collins, W.P.; Verrelst, H.; Vergore, I. 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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Timmerman, D.; Testa, A.C.; Bourne, T.; Ameye, L.; Jurkovic, D.; Holsbeke, A.; Paladini, D.; van Calster, B.; Vergote, I.; van Huffel, S.; et al. Simple ultrasound-based rules for the diagnosis of ovarian cancer. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 2008, 31, 681–690. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Timmerman, D.; Ameye, L.; Fischerova, D.; Epstein, E.; Melis, G.; Guerriero, S.; Van Holsbeke, C.; Savelli, L.; Fruscio, R.; Lissoni, A.A.; et al. Simple ultrasound rules to distinguish between benign and malignant adnexal masses before surgery: Prospective validation by IOTA group. BMJ 2010, 341, c6839. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Van Calster, B.; Hoorde, K.; Valentin, L.; Testa, A.C.; Fischerosa, D.; Holsbeke, C.; Savelli, L.; Franchi, D.; Epstein, E.; Kaijser, J.; et al. 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. BMJ 2014, 349, g5920. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Jeong, S.Y.; Park, B.; Lee, Y.; Kim, T. Validation of IOTA-ADNEX model in discriminating characteristics of adnexal masses: A comparison with subjective assessment. J. Clin. Med. 2020, 9, 2010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Timmerman, D. The use of mathematical models to evaluate pelvic masses; can they beat an expert operator? Best Pract. Res. Clin. Obstet. Gynaecol. 2004, 18, 91–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Meys, E.M.; Kaijser, J.; Kruitwagen, R.; Slangen, B.; Calster, V.; Aertgeerts, B.; Verbakel, J.Y.; Timmerman, D.; van Gorp, T. Subjective assessment versus ultrasound models to diagnose ovarian cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur. J. Cancer 2016, 58, 17–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Valentin, L.; Hagen, B.; Tingulstad, S.; Eik-Nes, S. Comparison of ‘pattern recognition’ and logistic regression models for discrimination between benign and malignant pelvic masses: A prospective cross validation. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 2001, 18, 357–365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van Calster, B.; Valentin, L.; Froyman, W.; Landolfo, C.; Ceusters, J.; Testa, A.; Wynants, L.; Sladkevicius, P.; van Holsbeke, C.; Domali, E.; et al. Validation of models to diagnose ovarian cancer in patients managed surgically or conservatively: Multicentre cohort study. BMJ 2020, 370, m2614. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Andreotti, R.F.; Timmerman, D.; Benacerraf, B.; Bennett, G.; Bourne, T.; Brown, D.; Coleman, B.G.; Frates, M.C.; Froyman, W.; Goldstein, S.R.; et al. Ovarian-adnexal reporting lexicon for ultrasound: A white paper of the ACR ovarian-adnexal reporting and data system committee. J. Am. Coll. Radiol. 2018, 15, 1415–1429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Andreotti, R.F.; Timmerman, D.; Strachowski, L.M.; Froyman, W.; Benacerraf, B.; Bennett, G.; Bourne, T.; Brown, D.L.; Coleman, B.G.; Frates, M.C.; et al. O-RADS US risk stratification and management system: A consensus guideline from the ACR ovarian-adnexal reporting and data system committee. Radiology 2020, 294, 168–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Valentin, L.; Akrawi, D. The natural history of adnexal cysts incidentally detected at transvaginal ultrasound examination in postmenopausal women. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 2002, 20, 174–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Crayford, T.J.; Campbell, S.; Bourne, T.; Rawson, H.; Collins, W. Benign ovarian cysts and ovarian cancer: A cohort study with implications for screening. Lancet 2000, 355, 1060–1063. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alcázar, J.L.; Castillo, G.; Jurado, M.; García, G. Is expectant management of sonographically benign adnexal cysts an option in selected asymptomatic premenopausal women? Hum. Reprod. 2005, 20, 3231–3234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Castillo, G.; Alcázar, J.L.; Jurado, M. Natural history of sonographically detected simple unilocular adnexal cysts in asymptomatic postmenopausal women. Gynecol. Oncol. 2004, 92, 965–969. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pascual, M.A.; Graupera, B.; Pedrero, C.; Rodriguez, I.; Ajossa, S.; Guerriero, S.; Alcazar, J.L. Long-term results for expectant management of ultrasonographically diagnosed benign ovarian teratomas. Obstet. Gynecol. 2017, 130, 1244–1250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hoo, W.L.; Yazbek, J.; Mavrelos, D.; Tong, E.; Jurkovic, D. Expectant management of ultrasonically diagnosed ovarian dermoid cysts: Is it possible to predict outcome? Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 2010, 36, 235–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Horiuchi, A.; Itoh, K.; Shimizu, M.; Nakai, I.; Yamazaki, T.; Kimura, K.; Suzuki, A.; Shiozawa, I.; Ueda, N.; Konishi, I.; et al. Toward understanding the natural history of ovarian carcinoma development: A clinicopathological approach. Gynecol. Oncol. 2003, 88, 309–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Characteristic | Premenopausal Women, n (%) | Postmenopausal Women, n (%) |
---|---|---|
Nulliparous | 126 out of 260 (48.5%) | 23 out of 205 (11.2%) |
Using hormonal contraception/menopausal hormonal replacement | 50 (19.2) | 11 (5.3) |
Personal history of breast cancer | 18 (6.9) | 26 (12.7) |
Personal history of ovarian cancer | - | - |
Personal history of previous ovarian surgery | 24 (9.2) | 10 (4.9) |
Previous Hysterectomy | 14 (5.3) | 29 (14.1) |
Patient Group (Total Number of Masses, Percentage) | Premenopausal Women (n = 328, 57.2%) | Postmenopausal Women (n = 245, 42.8%) |
---|---|---|
Diameter of the lesion (mm) | ||
Maximum | 140 | 135 |
Median (SD) | 50.2 (20.7) | 46.7 (19.2) |
Tumour type using IOTA terminology | ||
Unilocular | 202 (61.6%) | 106 (43.3%) |
Unilocular—solid | 9 (2.7%) | 12 (4.9%) |
Multilocular | 90 (27.4%) | 90 (36.7%) |
Multilocular—solid | 4 (1.2%) | 4 (1.6%) |
Solid | 23 (7%) | 33 (13.5%) |
Ultrasound examiner’s subjective assessment | ||
Simple, para-ovarian or salpingeal cyst | 44 (13.4%) | 31 (12.7%) |
Serous cystadenoma | 56 (23.5%) | 119 (48.6%) |
Mucinous cystadenoma | 12 (3.7%) | 5 (2%) |
Endometrioma | 98 (30%) | 6 (2.4%) |
Teratoma | 39 (13.3%) | 14 (5.7%) |
Fibroma of fibrothecoma | 21 (6.4%) | 34 (13.9%) |
Hydrosalpinx | 40 (12.2%) | 15 (6.1%) |
Serous cystadenofibroma | 8 (2.4%) | 12 (4.9%) |
Abscess, salpingitis or pelvic inflammatory disease | 5 (1.5%) | 5 (2%) |
Inclusion or peritoneal cyst | 1 (0.3%) | 3 (1.2%) |
Not possible to define | 4 (1.2%) | 1 (0.4%) |
Patient Group (Total Number of Masses, Percentage) | Premenopausal Women (n = 328, 57.2%) | Postmenopausal Women (n = 245, 42.8%) |
---|---|---|
Spontaneous resolution | 73 (22.3%) | 21 (8.6%) |
Persistent mass under conservative management | 187 (57%) | 189 (77.1%) |
Increasing complexity | 12 (3.7%) | 10 (4%) |
Persistent adnexal mass annual growth (%), median [mean ± SD] | 23.2 ± 176 | 10.8 ± 62 |
Going under surgery | 68 (20.7%) | 35 (14.3%) |
Indication for surgery | ||
| 17 (25%) | 11 (31.4%) |
| 6 (8.8%) | - |
| 24 (35.3%) | 24 (68.6%) |
| 21 (30.9%) | - |
Complications: | ||
| - | 1 (0.5%) * |
| 1 (0.3%) ** | - |
| 1 (0.3%) *** | - |
| - | - |
No mass complications | 292 (99.3%) | 244 (99.6%) |
Adnexal Masses with Spontaneous Resolution, (n = 94, 16.4%) | ||
---|---|---|
Patient Group (Total Number of Masses, Percentage) | Premenopausal Women (n = 73, 80.2%) | Postmenopausal Women (n = 21, 23.1%) |
Diameter of the lesion (mm) | ||
Range | 31–119 | 34–67 |
Median (± SD) | 45.6 ± 16.4 | 42.3 ± 12.3 |
Time interval to resolution (months) (median ± SD) | ||
Median ± SD | 11 ± 10 | 18.6 ± 10 |
In the first year of follow-up | 41 (56.2%) | 5 (23.8%) |
Tumour type using IOTA terminology | ||
Unilocular | 42 (57.5%) | 6 (33.3%) |
Unilocular—solid | - | - |
Multilocular | 30 (41.1%) | 15 (83.3%) |
Multilocular—solid | - | - |
Solid | - | - |
Ultrasound examiner’s subjective assessment | ||
Simple, para-ovarian or salpingeal cyst | 23 (31.5%) | 3 (14.3%) |
Serous cystadenoma | 17 (23.3%) | 6 (28.6%) |
Mucinous cystadenoma | 1 (1.4%) | - |
Endometrioma | 10 (13.7%) | 2 (9.5%) |
Teratoma | - | - |
Hydrosalpinx or salpingitis | 15 (20.5%) | 9 (42.9%) |
Abscess, salpingitis or pelvic inflammatory disease | 4 (5.5%) | - |
Inclusion or peritoneal cyst | - | 1 |
Serous cystadenofibroma | - | - |
Not possible to define | 3 (4.1%) | - |
Adnexal Masses with Increased Complexity, n = 22 | |
---|---|
Presumptive Histology Class (Sonographer Subjective Assessment at 1st Evaluation) | n (%) |
Simple, para-ovarian or salpingeal cyst | 3 (13.6%) |
Serous cystadenoma | 11 (50%) |
Mucinous cystadenoma | - |
Endometrioma | 2 (9%) |
Teratoma | - |
Fibroma of fibrothecoma | - |
Hydrosalpinx | 3 (13.6%) |
Serous cystadenofibroma | - |
Abscess, salpingitis or pelvic inflammatory disease | 2 (9%) |
Inclusion or peritoneal cyst | - |
Not possible to define | 1 (4.5%) |
Adnexal Masses Going Under Surgery, (n = 103, 18%) | |
---|---|
Simple, paraovarian or parasalpingeal cyst | 3 (2.9%) |
Endometrioma | 19 (18.4%) |
Teratoma | 14 (13.6%) |
Serous cystadenoma | 27 (26.2%) |
Mucinous cystadenoma | 8 (7.8%) |
Fibroma | 10 (9.7%) |
Hydrosalpinx or salpingitis | 8 (7.8%) |
Peritoneal pseudocyst | 1 (1%) |
Brenner tumour | 1 (1%) |
Serous cystadenofibroma | 9 (8.7%) |
Mucinous cystadenofibroma | 1 (1%) |
Invasive malignancy | 1 (1%) |
Borderline tumour | 1 (1%) |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Brito, M.E.; Borges, A.; Rodrigues, S.; Ambrósio, P.; Condeço, R.; Lacerda, A.; Bernardo, M.J.; Pinto, P.; Djokovic, D. Conservative Management of Asymptomatic Adnexal Masses Classified as Benign by the IOTA ADNEX Model: A Prospective Multicenter Portuguese Study. Diagnostics 2021, 11, 1992. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics11111992
Brito ME, Borges A, Rodrigues S, Ambrósio P, Condeço R, Lacerda A, Bernardo MJ, Pinto P, Djokovic D. Conservative Management of Asymptomatic Adnexal Masses Classified as Benign by the IOTA ADNEX Model: A Prospective Multicenter Portuguese Study. Diagnostics. 2021; 11(11):1992. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics11111992
Chicago/Turabian StyleBrito, Marta Espanhol, André Borges, Sofia Rodrigues, Paula Ambrósio, Raquel Condeço, Abílio Lacerda, Maria José Bernardo, Patrícia Pinto, and Dusan Djokovic. 2021. "Conservative Management of Asymptomatic Adnexal Masses Classified as Benign by the IOTA ADNEX Model: A Prospective Multicenter Portuguese Study" Diagnostics 11, no. 11: 1992. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics11111992
APA StyleBrito, M. E., Borges, A., Rodrigues, S., Ambrósio, P., Condeço, R., Lacerda, A., Bernardo, M. J., Pinto, P., & Djokovic, D. (2021). Conservative Management of Asymptomatic Adnexal Masses Classified as Benign by the IOTA ADNEX Model: A Prospective Multicenter Portuguese Study. Diagnostics, 11(11), 1992. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics11111992