| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
- Abbafati, Cristiana, et al.
(författare)
-
- 2020
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)
|
|
| 4. |
- Harmsen, M. J., et al.
(författare)
-
Consensus on revised definitions of Morphological Uterus Sonographic Assessment (MUSA) features of adenomyosis : results of modified Delphi procedure
- 2022
-
Ingår i: Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology. - : Wiley. - 0960-7692 .- 1469-0705. ; 60:1, s. 118-131
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Objectives: To evaluate whether the Morphological Uterus Sonographic Assessment (MUSA) features of adenomyosis need to be better defined and, if deemed necessary, to reach consensus on the updated definitions. Methods: A modified Delphi procedure was performed among European gynecologists with expertise in ultrasound diagnosis of adenomyosis. To identify MUSA features that might need revision, 15 two-dimensional (2D) video recordings (four recordings also included three-dimensional (3D) still images) of transvaginal ultrasound (TVS) examinations of the uterus were presented in the first Delphi round (online questionnaire). Experts were asked to confirm or refute the presence of each of the nine MUSA features of adenomyosis (described in the original MUSA consensus statement) in each of the 15 videoclips and to provide comments. In the second Delphi round (online questionnaire), the results of the first round and suggestions for revision of MUSA features were shared with the experts before they were asked to assess a new set of 2D and 3D still images of TVS examinations and to provide feedback on the proposed revisions. A third Delphi round (virtual group meeting) was conducted to discuss and reach final consensus on revised definitions of MUSA features. Consensus was predefined as at least 66.7% agreement between experts. Results: Of 18 invited experts, 16 agreed to participate in the Delphi procedure. Eleven experts completed and four experts partly finished the first round. The experts identified a need for more detailed definitions of some MUSA features. They recommended use of 3D ultrasound to optimize visualization of the junctional zone. Fifteen experts participated in the second round and reached consensus on the presence or absence of ultrasound features of adenomyosis in most of the still images. Consensus was reached for all revised definitions except those for subendometrial lines and buds and interrupted junctional zone. Thirteen experts joined the online meeting, in which they discussed and agreed on final revisions of the MUSA definitions. There was consensus on the need to distinguish between direct features of adenomyosis, i.e. features indicating presence of ectopic endometrial tissue in the myometrium, and indirect features, i.e. features reflecting changes in the myometrium secondary to presence of endometrial tissue in the myometrium. Myometrial cysts, hyperechogenic islands and echogenic subendometrial lines and buds were classified unanimously as direct features of adenomyosis. Globular uterus, asymmetrical myometrial thickening, fan-shaped shadowing, translesional vascularity, irregular junctional zone and interrupted junctional zone were classified as indirect features of adenomyosis. Conclusion: Consensus between gynecologists with expertise in ultrasound diagnosis of adenomyosis was achieved regarding revised definitions of the MUSA features of adenomyosis and on the classification of MUSA features as direct or indirect signs of adenomyosis.
|
|
| 5. |
- Eriksson, L. S.E., et al.
(författare)
-
Ultrasound-based risk model for preoperative prediction of lymph-node metastases in women with endometrial cancer : model-development study
- 2020
-
Ingår i: Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology. - : Wiley. - 0960-7692 .- 1469-0705. ; 56:3, s. 443-452
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Objective: To develop a preoperative risk model, using endometrial biopsy results and clinical and ultrasound variables, to predict the individual risk of lymph-node metastases in women with endometrial cancer. Methods: A mixed-effects logistic regression model for prediction of lymph-node metastases was developed in 1501 prospectively included women with endometrial cancer undergoing transvaginal ultrasound examination before surgery, from 16 European centers. Missing data, including missing lymph-node status, were imputed. Discrimination, calibration and clinical utility of the model were evaluated using leave-center-out cross validation. The predictive performance of the model was compared with that of risk classification from endometrial biopsy alone (high-risk defined as endometrioid cancer Grade 3/non-endometrioid cancer) or combined endometrial biopsy and ultrasound (high-risk defined as endometrioid cancer Grade 3/non-endometrioid cancer/deep myometrial invasion/cervical stromal invasion/extrauterine spread). Results: Lymphadenectomy was performed in 691 women, of whom 127 had lymph-node metastases. The model for prediction of lymph-node metastases included the predictors age, duration of abnormal bleeding, endometrial biopsy result, tumor extension and tumor size according to ultrasound and undefined tumor with an unmeasurable endometrium. The model's area under the curve was 0.73 (95% CI, 0.68–0.78), the calibration slope was 1.06 (95% CI, 0.79–1.34) and the calibration intercept was 0.06 (95% CI, –0.15 to 0.27). Using a risk threshold for lymph-node metastases of 5% compared with 20%, the model had, respectively, a sensitivity of 98% vs 48% and specificity of 11% vs 80%. The model had higher sensitivity and specificity than did classification as high-risk, according to endometrial biopsy alone (50% vs 35% and 80% vs 77%, respectively) or combined endometrial biopsy and ultrasound (80% vs 75% and 53% vs 52%, respectively). The model's clinical utility was higher than that of endometrial biopsy alone or combined endometrial biopsy and ultrasound at any given risk threshold. Conclusions: Based on endometrial biopsy results and clinical and ultrasound characteristics, the individual risk of lymph-node metastases in women with endometrial cancer can be estimated reliably before surgery. The model is superior to risk classification by endometrial biopsy alone or in combination with ultrasound.
|
|
| 6. |
|
|
| 7. |
|
|
| 8. |
- Heremans, R., et al.
(författare)
-
Estimating risk of endometrial malignancy and other intracavitary uterine pathology in women without abnormal uterine bleeding using IETA-1 multinomial regression model : validation study
- 2023
-
Ingår i: Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology. - 0960-7692.
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Objectives: To assess the ability of the International Endometrial Tumor Analysis (IETA)-1 polynomial regression model to estimate the risk of endometrial cancer (EC) and other intracavitary uterine pathology in women without abnormal uterine bleeding. Methods: This was a retrospective study, in which we validated the IETA-1 model on the IETA-3 study cohort (n = 1745). The IETA-3 study is a prospective observational multicenter study. It includes women without vaginal bleeding who underwent a standardized transvaginal ultrasound examination in one of seven ultrasound centers between January 2011 and December 2018. The ultrasonography was performed either as part of a routine gynecological examination, during follow-up of non-endometrial pathology, in the work-up before fertility treatment or before treatment for uterine prolapse or ovarian pathology. Ultrasonographic findings were described using IETA terminology and were compared with histology, or with results of clinical and ultrasound follow-up of at least 1 year if endometrial sampling was not performed. The IETA-1 model, which was created using data from patients with abnormal uterine bleeding, predicts four histological outcomes: (1) EC or endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia (EIN); (2) endometrial polyp or intracavitary myoma; (3) proliferative or secretory endometrium, endometritis, or endometrial hyperplasia without atypia; and (4) endometrial atrophy. The predictors in the model are age, body mass index and seven ultrasound variables (visibility of the endometrium, endometrial thickness, color score, cysts in the endometrium, non-uniform echogenicity of the endometrium, presence of a bright edge, presence of a single dominant vessel). We analyzed the discriminative ability of the model (area under the receiver-operating-characteristics curve (AUC); polytomous discrimination index (PDI)) and evaluated calibration of its risk estimates (observed/expected ratio). Results: The median age of the women in the IETA-3 cohort was 51 (range, 20–85) years and 51% (887/1745) of the women were postmenopausal. Histology showed EC or EIN in 29 (2%) women, endometrial polyps or intracavitary myomas in 1094 (63%), proliferative or secretory endometrium, endometritis, or hyperplasia without atypia in 144 (8%) and endometrial atrophy in 265 (15%) women. The endometrial sample had insufficient material in five (0.3%) cases. In 208 (12%) women who did not undergo endometrial sampling but were followed up for at least 1 year without clinical or ultrasound signs of endometrial malignancy, the outcome was classified as benign. The IETA-1 model had an AUC of 0.81 (95% CI, 0.73–0.89, n = 1745) for discrimination between malignant (EC or EIN) and benign endometrium, and the observed/expected ratio for EC or EIN was 0.51 (95% CI, 0.32–0.82). The model was able to categorize the four histological outcomes with considerable accuracy: the PDI of the model was 0.68 (95% CI, 0.62–0.73) (n = 1532). The IETA-1 model discriminated very well between endometrial atrophy and all other intracavitary uterine conditions, with an AUC of 0.96 (95% CI, 0.95–0.98). Including only patients in whom the endometrium was measurable (n = 1689), the model's AUC was 0.83 (95% CI, 0.75–0.91), compared with 0.62 (95% CI, 0.52–0.73) when using endometrial thickness alone to predict malignancy (difference in AUC, 0.21; 95% CI, 0.08–0.32). In postmenopausal women with measurable endometrial thickness (n = 848), the IETA-1 model gave an AUC of 0.81 (95% CI, 0.71–0.91), while endometrial thickness alone gave an AUC of 0.70 (95% CI, 0.60–0.81) (difference in AUC, 0.11; 95% CI, 0.01–0.20). Conclusion: The IETA-1 model discriminates well between benign and malignant conditions in the uterine cavity in patients without abnormal bleeding, but it overestimates the risk of malignancy. It also discriminates well between the four histological outcome categories.
|
|
| 9. |
- Heremans, R., et al.
(författare)
-
Ultrasound features of endometrial pathology in women without abnormal uterine bleeding : results from the International Endometrial Tumor Analysis study (IETA3)
- 2022
-
Ingår i: Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology. - : Wiley. - 1469-0705. ; 60:2, s. 243-255
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- OBJECTIVES: The primary aim of this study was to describe the ultrasound features of various endometrial and other intracavitary pathologies in women without abnormal uterine bleeding (AUB) using the International Endometrial Tumor Analysis (IETA) terminology. The secondary aim was to compare our findings with published data on women with AUB. METHODS: This was a prospective observational study of women presenting at one of seven centers specialized in gynecological ultrasonography, from 2011 until 2018, for indications unrelated to AUB. All patients underwent transvaginal ultrasound using the IETA examination and measurement techniques. Ultrasonography was performed as part of routine gynecological examination or follow-up of non-endometrial pathology, or as part of the work-up before undergoing treatment for infertility, uterine prolapse or ovarian pathology. Ultrasound findings were described using the IETA terminology. Endometrial sampling was performed after the ultrasound scan. The histological endpoints were endometrial atrophy, proliferative or secretory endometrium, endometrial hyperplasia without atypia, endometrial polyp, intracavitary leiomyoma, endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia (EIN), endometrial cancer (EC) and insufficient tissue. The findings in our cohort of women without AUB were compared with those in a published cohort of women with AUB who were examined with transvaginal ultrasound between 2012 and 2015 using the same IETA examination technique and terminology. RESULTS: In this study (IETA3), we included 1745 women without AUB who underwent a standardized transvaginal ultrasound examination followed by either endometrial sampling with histological diagnosis (n = 1537) or at least 1 year of clinical and ultrasound follow-up (n = 208). Of these, 858 (49.2%) women were premenopausal and 887 (50.8%) were postmenopausal. Histology showed the presence of EC and/or EIN in 29 (1.7%) women, endometrial polyps in 1028 (58.9%), intracavitary myomas in 66 (3.8%), proliferative or secretory changes or hyperplasia without atypia in 144 (8.3%), endometrial atrophy in 265 (15.2%) and insufficient tissue in five (0.3%). Most cases of EC or EIN (25/29 (86.2%)) were diagnosed after menopause. The mean endometrial thickness in women with EC or EIN was 11.2 mm (95% CI, 8.9-13.6 mm), being on average 2.4 mm (95% CI, 0.3-4.6 mm) thicker than their benign counterparts. Women with malignant endometrial pathology manifested more frequently non-uniform echogenicity (22/29 (75.9%)) than did those with benign endometrial pathology (929/1716 (54.1%)) (difference, +21.8% (95% CI, +4.2% to +39.2%)). Moderate to abundant vascularization (color score 3-4) was seen in 31.0% (9/29) of cases with EC or EIN compared with 12.8% (220/1716) of those with a benign outcome (difference, +18.2% (95% CI, -0.5% to +36.9%)). Multiple multifocal vessels were recorded in 24.1% (7/29) women with EC or EIN vs 4.0% (68/1716) of those with a benign outcome (difference, +20.2% (95% CI, +4.6% to +35.7%)). A regular endometrial-myometrial junction was seen less frequently in women with EC or EIN (19/29 (65.5%)) vs those with a benign outcome (1412/1716 (82.3%)) (difference, -16.8% (95% CI, -34.2% to +0.6%)). In women with endometrial polyps without AUB, a single dominant vessel was the most frequent vascular pattern (666/1028 (64.8%)). In women with EC, both in those with and those without AUB, the endometrium usually manifested heterogeneous echogenicity, but the endometrium was on average 8.6 mm (95% CI, 5.2-12.0 mm) thinner and less intensely vascularized (color score 3-4: difference, -26.8% (95% CI, -52.2% to -1.3%)) in women without compared to those with AUB. In both pre- and postmenopausal women, asymptomatic endometrial polyps were associated with a thinner endometrium, and they manifested more frequently a bright edge, a regular endometrial-myometrial junction and a single dominant vessel than did polyps in symptomatic women, and they were less intensely vascularized. CONCLUSIONS: We describe the typical ultrasound features of EC, polyps and other intracavitary histologies using IETA terminology in women without AUB. Our findings suggest that the presence of asymptomatic polyps or endometrial malignancy may be accompanied by thinner and less intensely vascularized endometria than their symptomatic counterparts.
|
|
| 10. |
- Jordans, I. P.M., et al.
(författare)
-
Definition and sonographic reporting system for Cesarean scar pregnancy in early gestation : modified Delphi method
- 2022
-
Ingår i: Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology. - : Wiley. - 0960-7692 .- 1469-0705. ; 59:4, s. 437-449
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Objective: To develop a standardized sonographic evaluation and reporting system for Cesarean scar pregnancy (CSP) in the first trimester, for use by both general gynecology and expert clinics. Methods: A modified Delphi procedure was carried out, in which 28 international experts in obstetric and gynecological ultrasonography were invited to participate. Extensive experience in the use of ultrasound to evaluate Cesarean section (CS) scars in early pregnancy and/or publications concerning CSP or niche evaluation was required to participate. Relevant items for the detection and evaluation of CSP were determined based on the results of a literature search. Consensus was predefined as a level of agreement of at least 70% for each item, and a minimum of three Delphi rounds were planned (two online questionnaires and one group meeting). Results: Sixteen experts participated in the Delphi study and four Delphi rounds were performed. In total, 58 items were determined to be relevant. We differentiated between basic measurements to be performed in general practice and advanced measurements for expert centers or for research purposes. The panel also formulated advice on indications for referral to an expert clinic. Consensus was reached for all 58 items on the definition, terminology, relevant items for evaluation and reporting of CSP. It was recommended that the first CS scar evaluation to determine the location of the pregnancy should be performed at 6–7 weeks' gestation using transvaginal ultrasound. The use of magnetic resonance imaging was not considered to add value in the diagnosis of CSP. A CSP was defined as a pregnancy with implantation in, or in close contact with, the niche. The experts agreed that a CSP can occur only when a niche is present and not in relation to a healed CS scar. Relevant sonographic items to record included gestational sac (GS) size, vascularity, location in relation to the uterine vessels, thickness of the residual myometrium and location of the pregnancy in relation to the uterine cavity and serosa. According to its location, a CSP can be classified as: (1) CSP in which the largest part of the GS protrudes towards the uterine cavity; (2) CSP in which the largest part of the GS is embedded in the myometrium but does not cross the serosal contour; and (3) CSP in which the GS is partially located beyond the outer contour of the cervix or uterus. The type of CSP may change with advancing gestation. Future studies are needed to validate this reporting system and the value of the different CSP types. Conclusion: Consensus was achieved among experts regarding the sonographic evaluation and reporting of CSP in the first trimester.
|
|
