• Je něco špatně v tomto záznamu ?

Are we better off using multiple endometriosis classifications in imaging and surgery than settle for one universal less than perfect protocol? Review of staging systems in ultrasound, magnetic resonance and surgery

T. Indrielle-Kelly, M. Fanta, F. Frühauf, A. Burgetová, D. Cibula, D. Fischerová

. 2022 ; 42 (1) : 10-16. [pub] 20210519

Jazyk angličtina Země Velká Británie

Typ dokumentu časopisecké články, přehledy

Perzistentní odkaz   https://www.medvik.cz/link/bmc22011522

There are multiple classifications in imaging and surgery of endometriosis and in this article, we offer a review of the main evaluation systems. The International Deep Endometriosis Analysis group consensus is the leading document for ultrasound assessment, while magnetic resonance imaging is guided by the European Society for Urogenital Radiology recommendations on technical protocol. In surgery, the revised American Society for Reproductive Medicine classification is the oldest system, ideally combined with newer classifications, such as Enzian or Endometriosis Fertility Index. Recently, The World Endometriosis Research Foundation Endometriosis Phenome and Biobanking Harmonisation Project introduced detailed proforma for clinical and intraoperative findings. There is still no universal consensus, so the initial emphasis should be on the uniform reporting of the disease extent until research clarifies more the correlations between extent, symptoms and progression in order to develop a reliable staging system.Impact StatementWhat is already known on this subject? There have been several reviews of surgical classifications, comparing their scope and practical use, while in the imaging the attempts for literature review has been scarce.What do the results of this study add? This is the first up to date review offering detailed analysis of the main classification systems across the three main areas involved in endometriosis care - ultrasound, MRI and surgery. The mutual awareness of the radiological classifications for surgeons and vice versa is crucial in an efficient multidisciplinary communication and patient care. On these comparisons we were able to demonstrate the lack of consensus in description of the extent of the disease and even further lack of prognostic features (with the exemption of one surgical system).What are the implications of these findings for clinical practice and/or further research? Future attempts of scientific societies should focus on defining uniform nomenclature for extent description. In the second step the staging classification should encompass prognostic value (risk of disease and symptoms recurrence).

Citace poskytuje Crossref.org

000      
00000naa a2200000 a 4500
001      
bmc22011522
003      
CZ-PrNML
005      
20220506130042.0
007      
ta
008      
220425s2022 xxk f 000 0|eng||
009      
AR
024    7_
$a 10.1080/01443615.2021.1887111 $2 doi
035    __
$a (PubMed)34009105
040    __
$a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
041    0_
$a eng
044    __
$a xxk
100    1_
$a Indrielle-Kelly, Tereza $u First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University in Prague, Prague 2, Czech Republic $1 https://orcid.org/0000000202517455
245    10
$a Are we better off using multiple endometriosis classifications in imaging and surgery than settle for one universal less than perfect protocol? Review of staging systems in ultrasound, magnetic resonance and surgery / $c T. Indrielle-Kelly, M. Fanta, F. Frühauf, A. Burgetová, D. Cibula, D. Fischerová
520    9_
$a There are multiple classifications in imaging and surgery of endometriosis and in this article, we offer a review of the main evaluation systems. The International Deep Endometriosis Analysis group consensus is the leading document for ultrasound assessment, while magnetic resonance imaging is guided by the European Society for Urogenital Radiology recommendations on technical protocol. In surgery, the revised American Society for Reproductive Medicine classification is the oldest system, ideally combined with newer classifications, such as Enzian or Endometriosis Fertility Index. Recently, The World Endometriosis Research Foundation Endometriosis Phenome and Biobanking Harmonisation Project introduced detailed proforma for clinical and intraoperative findings. There is still no universal consensus, so the initial emphasis should be on the uniform reporting of the disease extent until research clarifies more the correlations between extent, symptoms and progression in order to develop a reliable staging system.Impact StatementWhat is already known on this subject? There have been several reviews of surgical classifications, comparing their scope and practical use, while in the imaging the attempts for literature review has been scarce.What do the results of this study add? This is the first up to date review offering detailed analysis of the main classification systems across the three main areas involved in endometriosis care - ultrasound, MRI and surgery. The mutual awareness of the radiological classifications for surgeons and vice versa is crucial in an efficient multidisciplinary communication and patient care. On these comparisons we were able to demonstrate the lack of consensus in description of the extent of the disease and even further lack of prognostic features (with the exemption of one surgical system).What are the implications of these findings for clinical practice and/or further research? Future attempts of scientific societies should focus on defining uniform nomenclature for extent description. In the second step the staging classification should encompass prognostic value (risk of disease and symptoms recurrence).
650    _2
$a konsensus $7 D032921
650    _2
$a endometrióza $x klasifikace $7 D004715
650    _2
$a ženské pohlaví $7 D005260
650    12
$a gynekologické chirurgické výkony $7 D013509
650    _2
$a gynekologie $x normy $7 D006176
650    _2
$a lidé $7 D006801
650    12
$a magnetická rezonanční tomografie $7 D008279
650    _2
$a stupeň závažnosti nemoci $7 D012720
650    _2
$a společnosti lékařské $7 D012955
650    _2
$a určení symptomu $x metody $x normy $7 D063189
650    12
$a ultrasonografie $7 D014463
655    _2
$a časopisecké články $7 D016428
655    _2
$a přehledy $7 D016454
700    1_
$a Fanta, Michael $u Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General University Hospital in Prague, Prague 2, Czech Republic $1 https://orcid.org/0000000287592533 $7 xx0106843
700    1_
$a Frühauf, Filip $u Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General University Hospital in Prague, Prague 2, Czech Republic $1 https://orcid.org/0000000241611890 $7 xx0207709
700    1_
$a Burgetová, Andrea $u Department of Radiology, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General University Hospital in Prague, Prague, Czech Republic $1 https://orcid.org/0000000299752338 $7 xx0163957
700    1_
$a Cibula, David $u Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General University Hospital in Prague, Prague 2, Czech Republic $1 https://orcid.org/0000000163879356 $7 jo20000074072
700    1_
$a Fischerová, Daniela $u Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General University Hospital in Prague, Prague 2, Czech Republic $1 https://orcid.org/0000000272243218 $7 xx0074804
773    0_
$w MED00002860 $t Journal of obstetrics and gynaecology : the journal of the Institute of Obstetrics and Gynaecology $x 1364-6893 $g Roč. 42, č. 1 (2022), s. 10-16
856    41
$u https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34009105 $y Pubmed
910    __
$a ABA008 $b sig $c sign $y p $z 0
990    __
$a 20220425 $b ABA008
991    __
$a 20220506130034 $b ABA008
999    __
$a ok $b bmc $g 1789232 $s 1162720
BAS    __
$a 3
BAS    __
$a PreBMC
BMC    __
$a 2022 $b 42 $c 1 $d 10-16 $e 20210519 $i 1364-6893 $m Journal of obstetrics and gynaecology $n J Obstet Gynaecol $x MED00002860
LZP    __
$a Pubmed-20220425

Najít záznam

Citační ukazatele

Nahrávání dat ...

    Možnosti archivace