The European Society of Gynaecological Oncology (ESGO), the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology (ISUOG), the International Ovarian Tumour Analysis (IOTA) group and the European Society for Gynaecological Endoscopy (ESGE) jointly developed clinically relevant and evidence-based statements on the preoperative diagnosis of ovarian tumors, including imaging techniques, biomarkers and prediction models. ESGO/ISUOG/IOTA/ESGE nominated a multidisciplinary international group, including expert practising clinicians and researchers who have demonstrated leadership and expertise in the preoperative diagnosis of ovarian tumors and management of patients with ovarian cancer (19 experts across Europe). A patient representative was also included in the group. To ensure that the statements were evidence-based, the current literature was reviewed and critically appraised. Preliminary statements were drafted based on the review of the relevant literature. During a conference call, the whole group discussed each preliminary statement and a first round of voting was carried out. Statements were removed when consensus among group members was not obtained. The voters had the opportunity to provide comments/suggestions with their votes. The statements were then revised accordingly. Another round of voting was carried out according to the same rules to allow the whole group to evaluate the revised version of the statements. The group achieved consensus on 18 statements. This Consensus Statement presents these ESGO/ISUOG/IOTA/ESGE statements on the preoperative diagnosis of ovarian tumors and the assessment of carcinomatosis, together with a summary of the evidence supporting each statement.

Declaración de consenso de ESGO/ISUOG/IOTA/ESGE sobre el diagnóstico preoperatorio de los tumores de ovario La Sociedad Europea de Oncología Ginecológica (ESGO), la Sociedad Internacional de Ecografía en Obstetricia y Ginecología (ISUOG), el Grupo Internacional de Análisis de Tumores de Ovario (IOTA) y la Sociedad Europea de Endoscopia Ginecológica (ESGE) elaboraron conjuntamente declaraciones de importancia para la práctica clínica y con base empírica sobre el diagnóstico preoperatorio de los tumores de ovario, a partir de imágenes, biomarcadores y modelos de predicción, entre otras técnicas. La ESGO/ISUOG/IOTA/ESGE designó a un grupo internacional multidisciplinar, que incluye a personas expertas de la práctica clínica y la investigación que han demostrado liderazgo y experiencia en el diagnóstico preoperatorio de los tumores de ovario y en el tratamiento de las pacientes con cáncer de ovario (19 personas expertas de toda Europa). También se incluyó en el grupo a una representante de las pacientes. Para garantizar que las declaraciones tenían una base empírica, se revisó la literatura actual y se valoró de forma crítica. Se redactaron declaraciones preliminares basadas en la revisión de la literatura pertinente. La totalidad del grupo debatió durante una teleconferencia cada declaración preliminar y se llevó a cabo una primera ronda de votaciones. Las declaraciones se eliminaron cuando no se obtuvo el consenso entre los miembros del grupo. Los votantes tuvieron la oportunidad de aportar comentarios/sugerencias a la par que sus votos. Las declaraciones se revisaron en consecuencia. Se llevó a cabo otra ronda de votaciones según las mismas reglas para que todo el grupo pudiera evaluar la versión revisada de las declaraciones. El grupo logró un consenso sobre 18 declaraciones. Esta Declaración de Consenso presenta estas declaraciones de la ESGO/ISUOG/IOTA/ESGE sobre el diagnóstico preoperatorio de los tumores de ovario y la evaluación de la carcinomatosis, junto con un resumen de la evidencia que apoya cada declaración.

Chair Clinical Trial Project of the European Network of Gynaecological Cancer Advocacy Groups ENGAGe

Clinical Research Unit Institut Bergonie Bordeaux France

Department of Clinical Physiology Nuclear Medicine and PET Rigshospitalet Copenhagen University Hospital Copenhagen Denmark

Department of Development and Regeneration KU Leuven Leuven Belgium

Department of Gynaecological Surgery Institut Gustave Roussy Villejuif France

Department of Gynaecology and Gynaecological Oncology Evangelische Kliniken Essen Mitte Essen Germany

Department of Gynaecology and Obstetrics University Clinic of Navarra Madrid Spain

Department of Gynecologic Oncology Hammersmith Hospital Imperial College London UK

Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics Gynecologic Oncology Unit Santa Chiara Hospital Trento Italy

Department of Metabolism Digestion and Reproduction Queen Charlotte's and Chelsea Hospital Imperial College London UK

Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 1st Faculty of Medicine Charles University General University Hospital Prague Prague Czech Republic

Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology and Gynaecologic Oncology University Hospital Leuven Leuven Cancer Institute Leuven Belgium

Department of Obstetrics and Gynecologic Oncology University Hospital Strasbourg France

Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology Medical University of Innsbruck Innsbruck Austria

Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology University Hospitals KU Leuven Leuven Belgium

Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology University Hospitals Leuven Leuven Belgium

Department of Radiology University Clinic of Navarra Madrid Spain

Department of Radiology University Hospitals Leuven Leuven Belgium

Department of Woman Child and Public Health Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A Gemelli IRCCS Rome Italy

Division of Gynecologic Oncology Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A Gemelli IRCCS Rome Italy

Division of Translational MRI Department of Imaging and Pathology KU Leuven Leuven Belgium

Institute of Obstetrics and Gynecology Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore Rome Italy

Patient Representative President of Kraefti Underlivet Denmark

Zobrazit více v PubMed

Querleu D, Planchamp F, Chiva L, Fotopoulou C, Barton D, Cibula D, Aletti G, Carinelli S, Creutzberg C, Davidson B, Harter P, Lundvall L, Marth C, Morice P, Rafii A, Ray-Coquard I, Rockall A, Sessa C, van der Zee A, Vergote I, duBois A. European Society of Gynaecological Oncology (ESGO) Guidelines for Ovarian Cancer Surgery. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2017; 27: 1534-1542.

Woo YL, Kyrgiou M, Bryant A, Everett T, Dickinson HO. Centralisation of services for gynaecological cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012; 14: CD007945.

Engelen MJ, Kos HE, Willemse PH, Aalders JG, de Vries EG, Schaapveld M, Otter R, van der Zee AG. Surgery by consultant gynecologic oncologists improves survival in patients with ovarian carcinoma. Cancer 2006; 106: 589-598.

Froyman W, Landolfo C, De Cock B, Wynants L, Sladkevicius P, Testa AC, Van Holsbeke C, Domali E, Fruscio R, Epstein E, Dos Santos Bernardo MJ, Franchi D, Kudla MJ, Chiappa V, Alcazar JL, Leone FPG, Buonomo F, Hochberg L, Coccia ME, Guerriero S, Deo N, Jokubkiene L, Kaijser J, Coosemans A, Vergote I, Verbakel JY, Bourne T, Van Calster B, Valentin L, Timmerman D. 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.

du Bois A, Rochon J, Pfisterer J, Hoskins WJ. Variations in institutional infrastructure, physician specialization and experience, and outcome in ovarian cancer: a systematic review. Gynecol Oncol 2009; 112: 422-436.

Elit LM, Bondy SJ, Paszat LP, Holowaty EJ, Thomas GM, Stukel TA, Levine MN. Surgical outcomes in women with ovarian cancer. Can J Surg 2008; 51: 346-354.

Vernooij F, Heintz P, Witteveen E, van der Graaf Y. The outcomes of ovarian cancer treatment are better when provided by gynecologic oncologists and in specialized hospitals: a systematic review. Gynecol Oncol 2007; 105: 801-812.

Kaijser J, Vandecaveye V, Deroose CM, Rockall A, Thomassin-Naggara I, Bourne T, Timmerman D. Imaging techniques for the pre-surgical diagnosis of adnexal tumours. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 2014; 28: 683-695.

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.

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.

Meys EM, Kaijser J, Kruitwagen RF, Slangen BF, Van Calster B, Aertgeerts B, Verbakel JY, 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.

Valentin L. Prospective cross-validation of Doppler ultrasound examination and gray-scale ultrasound imaging for discrimination of benign and malignant pelvic masses. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1999; 14: 273-283.

Timmerman D, Schwarzler P, Collins WP, Claerhout F, Coenen M, Amant F, Vergote I, Bourne TH. Subjective assessment of adnexal masses with the use of ultrasonography: an analysis of interobserver variability and experience. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1999; 13: 11-16.

Yazbek J, Raju SK, Ben-Nagi J, Holland TK, 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.

Education and Practical 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.

Jacobs I, Oram D, Fairbanks J, Turner J, Frost C, Grudzinskas JG. A risk of malignancy index incorporating CA 125, ultrasound and menopausal status for the accurate preoperative diagnosis of ovarian cancer. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1990; 97: 922-929.

Chacon E, Dasi J, Caballero C, Alcazar JL. Risk of Ovarian Malignancy Algorithm versus Risk Malignancy Index-I for Preoperative Assessment of Adnexal Masses: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Gynecol Obstet Invest 2019; 84: 591-598.

Westwood M, Ramaekers B, Lang S, Grimm S, Deshpande S, de Kock S, Armstrong N, Joore M, Kleijnen J. Risk scores to guide referral decisions for people with suspected ovarian cancer in secondary care: a systematic review and cost-effectiveness analysis. Health Technol Assess 2018; 22: 1-264.

Khoiwal K, Bahadur A, Kumari R, Bhattacharya N, Rao S, Chaturvedi J. Assessment of Diagnostic Value of Serum Ca-125 and Risk of Malignancy Index Scoring in the Evaluation of Adnexal Masses. J Midlife Health 2019; 10: 192-196.

Dochez V, Randet M, Renaudeau C, Dimet J, Le Thuaut A, Winer N, Thubert T, Vaucel E, Caillon H, Ducarme G. Efficacy of HE4, CA125, Risk of Malignancy Index and Risk of Ovarian Malignancy Index to Detect Ovarian Cancer in Women with Presumed Benign Ovarian Tumours: A Prospective, Multicentre Trial. J Clin Med 2019; 8: 1784.

Al-Musalhi K, Al-Kindi M, Ramadhan F, Al-Rawahi T, Al-Hatali K, Mula-Abed WA. Validity of Cancer Antigen-125 (CA-125) and Risk of Malignancy Index (RMI) in the Diagnosis of Ovarian Cancer. Oman Med J 2015; 30: 428-434.

Zhang S, Yu S, Hou W, Li X, Ning C, Wu Y, Zhang F, Jiao YF, Lee LTO, Sun L. Diagnostic extended usefulness of RMI: comparison of four risk of malignancy index in preoperative differentiation of borderline ovarian tumors and benign ovarian tumors. J Ovarian Res 2019; 12: 87.

Bouzari Z, Yazdani S, Shirkhani Kelagar Z, Abbaszadeh N. Risk of malignancy index as an evaluation of preoperative pelvic mass. Caspian J Intern Med 2011; 2: 331-335.

Chopra S, Vaishya R, Kaur J. An Evaluation of the Applicability of the Risk of Malignancy Index for Adnexal Masses to Patients Seen at a Tertiary Hospital in Chandigarh, India. J Obstet Gynaecol India 2015; 65: 405-410.

Al Musalhi K, Al Kindi M, Al Aisary F, Ramadhan F, Al Rawahi T, Al Hatali K, Mula-Abed WA. Evaluation of HE4, CA-125, Risk of Ovarian Malignancy Algorithm (ROMA) and Risk of Malignancy Index (RMI) in the Preoperative Assessment of Patients with Adnexal Mass. Oman Med J 2016; 31: 336-344.

Javdekar R, Maitra N. Risk of Malignancy Index (RMI) in Evaluation of Adnexal Mass. J Obstet Gynaecol India 2015; 65: 117-121.

Akturk E, Karaca RE, Alanbay I, Dede M, Karasahin E, Yenen MC, Baser I. Comparison of four malignancy risk indices in the detection of malignant ovarian masses. J Gynecol Oncol 2011; 22: 177-182.

Hada A, Han LP, Chen Y, Hu QH, Yuan Y, Liu L. Comparison of the predictive performance of risk of malignancy indexes 1-4, HE4 and risk of malignancy algorithm in the triage of adnexal masses. J Ovarian Res 2020; 13: 46.

Anton C, Carvalho FM, Oliveira EI, Maciel GA, Baracat EC, Carvalho JP. A comparison of CA125, HE4, risk ovarian malignancy algorithm (ROMA), and risk malignancy index (RMI) for the classification of ovarian masses. Clinics (Sao Paulo) 2012; 67: 437-441.

Moore RG, Brown AK, Miller MC, Skates S, Allard WJ, Verch T, Steinhoff M, Messerlian G, DiSilvestro P, Granai CO, Bast Jr RC. The use of multiple novel tumor biomarkers for the detection of ovarian carcinoma in patients with a pelvic mass. Gynecol Oncol 2008; 108: 402-408.

Kaijser J, Van Gorp T, Sayasneh A, Vergote I, Bourne T, Van Calster B, Timmerman D. Differentiating stage I epithelial ovarian cancer from benign disease in women with adnexal tumors using biomarkers or the ROMA algorithm. Gynecol Oncol 2013; 130: 398-399.

Timmerman D, Van Calster B, Jurkovic D, Valentin L, Testa AC, Bernard JP, Van Holsbeke C, Van Huffel S, Vergote I, Bourne T. Inclusion of CA-125 does not improve mathematical models developed to distinguish between benign and malignant adnexal tumors. J Clin Oncol 2007; 25: 4194-4200.

Timmerman D, Valentin L, Bourne TH, Collins WP, Verrelst H, Vergote 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.

Timmerman D, Testa AC, Bourne T, Ferrazzi E, Ameye L, Konstantinovic ML, Van Calster B, Collins WP, Vergote I, Van Huffel S, Valentin L. Logistic regression model to distinguish between the benign and malignant adnexal mass before surgery: a multicenter study by the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis Group. J Clin Oncol 2005; 23: 8794-8801.

Timmerman D, Van Calster B, Testa A, Savelli L, Fischerova D, Froyman W, Wynants L, Van Holsbeke C, Epstein E, Franchi D, Kaijser J, Czekierdowski A, Guerriero S, Fruscio R, Leone FPG, Rossi A, Landolfo C, Vergote I, Bourne T, Valentin L. Predicting the risk of malignancy in adnexal masses based on the Simple Rules from the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis group. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2016; 214: 424-437.

Van Calster B, Van Hoorde K, Valentin L, Testa AC, Fischerova D, Van Holsbeke C, Savelli L, Franchi D, Epstein E, Kaijser J, Van Belle V, Czekierdowski A, Guerriero S, Fruscio R, Lanzani C, Scala F, Bourne T, Timmerman D. 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.

Van Holsbeke C, Van Calster B, Bourne T, Ajossa S, Testa AC, Guerriero S, Fruscio R, Lissoni AA, Czekierdowski A, Savelli L, Van Huffel S, Valentin L, Timmerman D. External validation of diagnostic models to estimate the risk of malignancy in adnexal masses. Clin Cancer Res 2012; 18: 815-825.

Sayasneh A, Wynants L, Preisler J, Kaijser J, Johnson S, Stalder C, Husicka R, Abdallah Y, Raslan F, Drought A, Smith AA, Ghaem-Maghami S, Epstein E, Van Calster B, Timmerman D, Bourne T. Multicentre external validation of IOTA prediction models and RMI by operators with varied training. Br J Cancer 2013; 108: 2448-2454.

Timmerman D, Testa AC, Bourne T, Ameye L, Jurkovic D, Van Holsbeke C, Paladini D, Van Calster B, Vergote I, Van Huffel S, Valentin L. Simple ultrasound-based rules for the diagnosis of ovarian cancer. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2008; 31: 681-690.

Timmerman D, Ameye L, Fischerova D, Epstein E, Melis GB, Guerriero S, Van Holsbeke C, Savelli L, Fruscio R, Lissoni AA, Testa AC, Veldman J, Vergote I, Van Huffel S, Bourne T, Valentin L. et al. Simple ultrasound rules to distinguish between benign and malignant adnexal masses before surgery: prospective validation by IOTA group. BMJ 2010; 341: c6839.

Hartman CA, Juliato CR, Sarian LO, Toledo MC, Jales RM, Morais SS, Pitta DD, Marussi EF, Derchain S. Ultrasound criteria and CA 125 as predictive variables of ovarian cancer in women with adnexal tumors. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2012; 40: 360-366.

Alcazar JL, Pascual MA, Olartecoechea B, Graupera B, Auba M, Ajossa S, Hereter L, Julve R, Gaston B, Peddes C, Sedda F, Piras A, Saba L, Guerriero S. IOTA simple rules for discriminating between benign and malignant adnexal masses: prospective external validation. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2013; 42: 467-471.

Tantipalakorn C, Wanapirak C, Khunamornpong S, Sukpan K, Tongsong T. IOTA simple rules in differentiating between benign and malignant ovarian tumors. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 2014; 15: 5123-5126.

Nunes N, Ambler G, Foo X, Naftalin J, Widschwendter M, Jurkovic D. Use of IOTA simple rules for diagnosis of ovarian cancer: meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2014; 44: 503-514.

Ruiz de Gauna B, Rodriguez D, Olartecoechea B, Auba M, Jurado M, Gomez Roig MD, Alcazar JL. Diagnostic performance of IOTA simple rules for adnexal masses classification: a comparison between two centers with different ovarian cancer prevalence. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2015; 191: 10-14.

Knafel A, Banas T, Nocun A, Wiechec M, Jach R, Ludwin A, Kabzinska-Turek M, Pietrus M, Pitynski K. The Prospective External Validation of International Ovarian Tumor Analysis (IOTA) Simple Rules in the Hands of Level I and II Examiners. Ultraschall Med 2016; 37: 516-523.

Ameye L, Timmerman D, Valentin L, Paladini D, Zhang J, Van Holsbeke C, Lissoni AA, Savelli L, Veldman J, Testa AC, Amant F, Van Huffel S, Bourne T. Clinically oriented three-step strategy for assessment of adnexal pathology. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2012; 40: 582-591.

Kaijser J, Sayasneh A, Van Hoorde K, Ghaem-Maghami S, Bourne T, Timmerman D, Van Calster B. Presurgical diagnosis of adnexal tumours using mathematical models and scoring systems: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod Update 2014; 20: 449-462.

American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists’ Committee on Practice Bulletins - Gynecology. Practice Bulletin No. 174: Evaluation and Management of Adnexal Masses. Obstet Gynecol 2016; 128: e210-e226.

Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. Management of suspected ovarian masses in premenopausal women. Green-top Guideline No. 62, 2011. https://www.rcog.org.uk/globalassets/documents/guidelines/gtg_62.pdf [Accessed 27 October 2020].

Glanc P, Benacerraf B, Bourne T, Brown D, Coleman BG, Crum C, Dodge J, Levine D, Pavlik E, Timmerman D, Ueland FR, Wolfman W, Goldstein SR. First International Consensus Report on Adnexal Masses: Management Recommendations. J Ultrasound Med 2017; 36: 849-863.

Nunes N, Ambler G, Foo X, Naftalin J, Derdelis G, Widschwendter M, Jurkovic D. Comparison of two protocols for the management of asymptomatic postmenopausal women with adnexal tumours - a randomised controlled trial of RMI/RCOG vs Simple Rules. Br J Cancer 2017; 116: 584-591.

Piovano E, Cavallero C, Fuso L, Viora E, Ferrero A, Gregori G, Grillo C, Macchi C, Mengozzi G, Mitidieri M, Pagano E, Zola P. Diagnostic accuracy and cost-effectiveness of different strategies to triage women with adnexal masses: a prospective study. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2017; 50: 395-403.

Alcazar JL, Pascual MA, Graupera B, Auba M, Errasti T, Olartecoechea B, Olartecoechea B, Ruiz-Zambrana A, Hereter L, Ajossa S, Guerriero S. External validation of IOTA simple descriptors and simple rules for classifying adnexal masses. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2016; 48: 397-402.

Sayasneh A, Ferrara L, De Cock B, Saso S, Al-Memar M, Johnson S, Kaijser J, Carvalho J, Husicka R, Smith A, Stalder C, Blanco MC, Ettore G, Van Calster B, Timmerman D, Bourne T. Evaluating the risk of ovarian cancer before surgery using the ADNEX model: a multicentre external validation study. Br J Cancer 2016; 115: 542-548.

Araujo KG, Jales RM, Pereira PN, Yoshida A, de Angelo Andrade L, Sarian LO, Derchain S. Performance of the IOTA ADNEX model in preoperative discrimination of adnexal masses in a gynecological oncology center. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2017; 49: 778-783.

Meys EMJ, Jeelof LS, Achten NMJ, Slangen BFM, Lambrechts S, Kruitwagen R, Van Gorp T. Estimating risk of malignancy in adnexal masses: external validation of the ADNEX model and comparison with other frequently used ultrasound methods. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2017; 49: 784-792.

Szubert S, Wojtowicz A, Moszynski R, Zywica P, Dyczkowski K, Stachowiak A, Sajdak S, Szpurek D, Alcazar JL. External validation of the IOTA ADNEX model performed by two independent gynecologic centers. Gynecol Oncol 2016; 142: 490-495.

Van Calster B, Steyerberg EW, Bourne T, Timmerman D, Collins GS. Flawed external validation study of the ADNEX model to diagnose ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol Rep 2016; 18: 49-50.

Van Calster B. External validation of ADNEX model for diagnosing ovarian cancer: evaluating performance of differentiation between tumor subgroups. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2017; 50: 406-407.

Wynants L, Timmerman D, Verbakel JY, Testa A, Savelli L, Fischerova D, Franchi D, Van Holsbeke C, Epstein E, Froyman W, Guerriero S, Rossi A, Fruscio R, Leone FP, Bourne T, Valentin L, Van Calster B. Clinical Utility of Risk Models to Refer Patients with Adnexal Masses to Specialized Oncology Care: Multicenter External Validation Using Decision Curve Analysis. Clin Cancer Res 2017; 23: 5082-5090.

Viora E, Piovano E, Baima Poma C, Cotrino I, Castiglione A, Cavallero C, Sciarrone A, Bastonero S, Iskra L, Zola P. The ADNEX model to triage adnexal masses: An external validation study and comparison with the IOTA two-step strategy and subjective assessment by an experienced ultrasound operator. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2020; 247: 207-211.

Van Calster B, Valentin L, Froyman W, Landolfo C, Ceusters J, Testa AC, Wynants L, Sladkevicius P, Van Holsbeke C, Domali E, Fruscio R, Epstein E, Franchi D, Kudla MJ, Chiappa V, Alcazar JL, Leone FPG, Buonomo F, Coccia ME, Guerriero S, Deo, N, Jokubkiene L, Savelli L, Fischerova D, Czekierdowski A, Kaijser J, Coosemans A, Scambia G, Vergote I, Bourne T, Timmerman D. Validation of models to diagnose ovarian cancer in patients managed surgically or conservatively: multicentre cohort study. BMJ 2020; 370: m2614.

Amor F, Vaccaro H, Alcazar JL, Leon M, Craig JM, Martinez J. Gynecologic imaging reporting and data system: a new proposal for classifying adnexal masses on the basis of sonographic findings. J Ultrasound Med 2009; 28: 285-291.

Amor F, Alcazar JL, Vaccaro H, Leon M, Iturra A. GI-RADS reporting system for ultrasound evaluation of adnexal masses in clinical practice: a prospective multicenter study. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2011; 38: 450-455.

Koneczny J, Czekierdowski A, Florczak M, Poziemski P, Stachowicz N, Borowski D. The use of sonographic subjective tumor assessment, IOTA logistic regression model 1, IOTA Simple Rules and GI-RADS system in the preoperative prediction of malignancy in women with adnexal masses. Ginekol Pol 2017; 88: 647-653.

Zheng H, Tie Y, Wang X, Yang Y, Wei X, Zhao X. Assessment of the diagnostic value of using serum CA125 and GI-RADS system in the evaluation of adnexal masses. Medicine (Baltimore) 2019; 98: e14577.

Zhang T, Li F, Liu J, Zhang S. Diagnostic performance of the Gynecology Imaging Reporting and Data System for malignant adnexal masses. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2017; 137: 325-331.

Behnamfar F, Adibi A, Khadra H, Moradi M. Diagnostic accuracy of gynecology imaging reporting and data system in evaluation of adnexal lesions. J Res Med Sci 2019; 24: 57.

Migda M, Bartosz M, Migda MS, Kierszk M, Katarzyna G, Malenczyk M. Diagnostic value of the gynecology imaging reporting and data system (GI-RADS) with the ovarian malignancy marker CA-125 in preoperative adnexal tumor assessment. J Ovarian Res 2018; 11: 92.

Basha MAA, Refaat R, Ibrahim SA, Madkour NM, Awad AM, Mohamed EM, El Sammak AA, Zaitoun MMA, Dawoud HA, Khamis MEM, Mohamed HAE, El-Maghraby AM, Abdalla A, Assy MM, Nada MG, Obaya AA, Abdelbary EH. Gynecology Imaging Reporting and Data System (GI-RADS): diagnostic performance and inter-reviewer agreement. Eur Radiol 2019; 29: 5981-5990.

Andreotti RF, Timmerman D, Benacerraf BR, Bennett GL, Bourne T, Brown DL, Coleman BG, Frates MC, Froyman W, Goldstein SR, Hamper UM, Horrow MM, Hernanz-Schulman M, Reinhold C, Strachowski LM, Glanc P. 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.

Erratum. J Am Coll Radiol 2019; 16: 403-406.

Andreotti RF, Timmerman D, Strachowski LM, Froyman W, Benacerraf BR, Bennett GL, Bourne T, Brown DL, Coleman BG, Frates MC, Goldstein SR, Hamper UM, Horrow MM, Hernanz-Schulman M, Reinhold C, Rose SL, Whitcomb BP, Wolfman WL, Glanc P. 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.

Basha MAA, Metwally MI, Gamil SA, Khater HM, Aly SA, El Sammak AA, Zaitoun MMA, Khattab EM, Azmy TM, Alayouty NA, Mohey N, Almassry HN, Yousef HY, Ibrahim SA, Mohamed EA, Mohamed AEM, Afifi AHM, Harb OA, Algazzar HY. Comparison of O-RADS, GI-RADS, and IOTA simple rules regarding malignancy rate, validity, and reliability for diagnosis of adnexal masses. Eur Radiol 2021; 31: 674-684.

Medeiros LR, Rosa DD, da Rosa MI, Bozzetti MC. Accuracy of CA 125 in the diagnosis of ovarian tumors: a quantitative systematic review. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2009; 142: 99-105.

Babic A, Cramer DW, Kelemen LE, Kobel M, Steed H, Webb PM, Johnatty SE, deFazio A, Lambrechts D, Goodman MT, Heitz F, Matsuo K, Hosono S, Karlan BY, Jensen A, Kjaer SK, Goode EL, Pejovic T, Moffitt M, Hogdall E, Hogdall C, McNeish I, Terry KL. Predictors of pretreatment CA125 at ovarian cancer diagnosis: a pooled analysis in the Ovarian Cancer Association Consortium. Cancer Causes Control 2017; 28: 459-468.

Johnson CC, Kessel B, Riley TL, Ragard LR, Williams CR, Xu JL, Buys SS. The epidemiology of CA-125 in women without evidence of ovarian cancer in the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian Cancer (PLCO) Screening Trial. Gynecol Oncol 2008; 110: 383-389.

Pauler DK, Menon U, McIntosh M, Symecko HL, Skates SJ, Jacobs IJ. Factors influencing serum CA125II levels in healthy postmenopausal women. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2001; 10: 489-493.

Cramer DW, Vitonis AF, Welch WR, Terry KL, Goodman A, Rueda BR, Berkowitz RS. Correlates of the preoperative level of CA125 at presentation of ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol 2010; 119: 462-468.

Lycke M, Kristjansdottir B, Sundfeldt K. A multicenter clinical trial validating the performance of HE4, CA125, risk of ovarian malignancy algorithm and risk of malignancy index. Gynecol Oncol 2018; 151: 159-165.

Lin J, Qin J, Sangvatanakul V. Human epididymis protein 4 for differential diagnosis between benign gynecologic disease and ovarian cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2013; 167: 81-85.

Richards A, Herbst U, Manalang J, Pather S, Saidi S, Tejada-Berges T, Tan K, Williams P, Carter J. HE4, CA125, the Risk of Malignancy Algorithm and the Risk of Malignancy Index and complex pelvic masses - a prospective comparison in the pre-operative evaluation of pelvic masses in an Australian population. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 2015; 55: 493-497.

Romagnolo C, Leon AE, Fabricio ASC, Taborelli M, Polesel J, Del Pup L, Steffan A, Cervo S, Ravaggi A, Zanotti L, Bandiera E, Odicino FE, Scattolo N, Squarcina E, Papadakis C, Maggino T, Gion M. HE4, CA125 and risk of ovarian malignancy algorithm (ROMA) as diagnostic tools for ovarian cancer in patients with a pelvic mass: An Italian multicenter study. Gynecol Oncol 2016; 141: 303-311.

Li F, Tie R, Chang K, Wang F, Deng S, Lu W, Yu L, Chen M. Does risk for ovarian malignancy algorithm excel human epididymis protein 4 and CA125 in predicting epithelial ovarian cancer: a meta-analysis. BMC Cancer 2012; 12: 258.

Wang J, Gao J, Yao H, Wu Z, Wang M, Qi J. Diagnostic accuracy of serum HE4, CA125 and ROMA in patients with ovarian cancer: a meta-analysis. Tumour Biol 2014; 35: 6127-6138.

Van Gorp T, Veldman J, Van Calster B, Cadron I, Leunen K, Amant F, Timmerman D, Vergote I. Subjective assessment by ultrasound is superior to the risk of malignancy index (RMI) or the risk of ovarian malignancy algorithm (ROMA) in discriminating benign from malignant adnexal masses. Eur J Cancer 2012; 48: 1649-1656.

Stiekema A, Lok CA, Kenter GG, van Driel WJ, Vincent AD, Korse CM. A predictive model combining human epididymal protein 4 and radiologic features for the diagnosis of ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol 2014; 132: 573-577.

Yanaranop M, Anakrat V, Siricharoenthai S, Nakrangsee S, Thinkhamrop B. Is the Risk of Ovarian Malignancy Algorithm Better Than Other Tests for Predicting Ovarian Malignancy in Women with Pelvic Masses? Gynecol Obstet Invest 2017; 82: 47-53.

Jacob F, Meier M, Caduff R, Goldstein D, Pochechueva T, Hacker N, Fink D, Heinzelmann-Schwarz V. No benefit from combining HE4 and CA125 as ovarian tumor markers in a clinical setting. Gynecol Oncol 2011; 121: 487-491.

Melo A, Verissimo R, Farinha M, Martins NN, Martins FN. Discriminative value of CA-125, HE4, Risk of Malignancy Index II (RMI-II) and Risk of Malignancy Algorithm (ROMA) in the differential diagnosis of pelvic masses: conclusions from a referral Centre in Portugal. J Obstet Gynaecol 2018; 38: 1140-1145.

Jia MM, Deng J, Cheng XL, Yan Z, Li QC, Xing YY, Fan DM, Tian XY. Diagnostic accuracy of urine HE4 in patients with ovarian cancer: a meta-analysis. Oncotarget 2017; 8: 9660-9671.

Huang J, Chen J, Huang Q. Diagnostic value of HE4 in ovarian cancer: A meta-analysis. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2018; 231: 35-42.

Cao H, You D, Lan Z, Ye H, Hou M, Xi M. Prognostic value of serum and tissue HE4 expression in ovarian cancer: a systematic review with meta-analysis of 90 studies. Expert Rev Mol Diagn 2018; 18: 371-383.

Yu S, Yang HJ, Xie SQ, Bao YX. Diagnostic value of HE4 for ovarian cancer: a meta-analysis. Clin Chem Lab Med 2012; 50: 1439-1446.

Sandri MT, Bottari F, Franchi D, Boveri S, Candiani M, Ronzoni S, Peiretti M, Radice D, Passerini R, Sideri M. Comparison of HE4, CA125 and ROMA algorithm in women with a pelvic mass: correlation with pathological outcome. Gynecol Oncol 2013; 128: 233-238.

Kim B, Park Y, Ahn HJ, Lee KA, Chung JE, Han SW. Diagnostic performance of CA 125, HE4, and risk of Ovarian Malignancy Algorithm for ovarian cancer. J Clin Lab Anal 2019; 33: e22624.

Kotowicz B, Fuksiewicz M, Sobiczewski P, Spiewankiewicz B, Jonska-Gmyrek J, Skrzypczak M, Kowalska M. Clinical value of human epididymis protein 4 and the Risk of Ovarian Malignancy Algorithm in differentiating borderline pelvic tumors from epithelial ovarian cancer in early stages. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2015; 194: 141-146.

Shin KH, Kim HH, Kwon BS, Suh DS, Joo JK, Kim KH. Clinical Usefulness of Cancer Antigen (CA) 125, Human Epididymis 4, and CA72-4 Levels and Risk of Ovarian Malignancy Algorithm Values for Diagnosing Ovarian Tumors in Korean Patients With and Without Endometriosis. Ann Lab Med 2020; 40: 40-47.

Terlikowska KM, Dobrzycka B, Witkowska AM, Mackowiak-Matejczyk B, Sledziewski TK, Kinalski M, Terlikowski SJ. Preoperative HE4, CA125 and ROMA in the differential diagnosis of benign and malignant adnexal masses. J Ovarian Res 2016; 9: 43.

Xu Y, Zhong R, He J, Ding R, Lin H, Deng Y, Zhou L, Li X, Jiang J, Bao Y, Luo X, Duan C. Modification of cut-off values for HE4, CA125 and the ROMA algorithm for early-stage epithelial ovarian cancer detection: Results from 1021 cases in South China. Clin Biochem 2016; 49: 32-40.

Yanaranop M, Jantarateptewan N, Tiyayon J, Nakrangsee S. Significance of Serum Human Epididymis Protein 4 and Cancer Antigen 125 in Distinguishing Type I and Type II Epithelial Ovarian Cancers. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2018; 28: 1058-1065.

Zhang P, Wang C, Cheng L, Guo L, Liu W, Zhang Z, Huang Y, Ou Q, Wen X, Tian Y. Comparison of HE4, CA125, and ROMA Diagnostic Accuracy: A Prospective and Multicenter Study for Chinese Women With Epithelial Ovarian Cancer. Medicine (Baltimore) 2015; 94: e2402.

Choi HJ, Lee YY, Sohn I, Kim YM, Kim JW, Kang S, Kim BG. Comparison of CA 125 alone and risk of ovarian malignancy algorithm (ROMA) in patients with adnexal mass: A multicenter study. Curr Probl Cancer 2020; 44: 100508.

Kaijser J, Van Gorp T, Smet ME, Van Holsbeke C, Sayasneh A, Epstein E, Bourne T, Vergote I, Van Calster B, Timmerman D. Are serum HE4 or ROMA scores useful to experienced examiners for improving characterization of adnexal masses after transvaginal ultrasonography? Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2014; 43: 89-97.

Chen X, Zhou H, Chen R, He J, Wang Y, Huang L, Sun L, Duan C, Luo X, Yan H. Development of a multimarker assay for differential diagnosis of benign and malignant pelvic masses. Clin Chim Acta 2015; 440: 57-63.

Cui R, Wang Y, Li Y. Clinical value of ROMA index in diagnosis of ovarian cancer: meta-analysis. Cancer Manag Res 2019; 11: 2545-2551.

Huy NVQ, Van Khoa V, Tam LM, Vinh TQ, Tung NS, Thanh CN, Chuang L. Standard and optimal cut-off values of serum ca-125, HE4 and ROMA in preoperative prediction of ovarian cancer in Vietnam. Gynecol Oncol Rep 2018; 25: 110-114.

Shen F, Lu S, Peng Y, Yang F, Chen Y, Lin Y, Yang C, Wu L, Li H, Zheng Y. Performance of ROMA based on Architect CA 125 II and HE4 values in Chinese women presenting with a pelvic mass: A multicenter prospective study. Clin Chim Acta 2017; 471: 119-125.

Sagi-Dain L, Lavie O, Auslander R, Sagi S. CEA in evaluation of adnexal mass: retrospective cohort analysis and review of the literature. Int J Biol Markers 2015; 30: e394-400.

Sagi-Dain L, Lavie O, Auslander R, Sagi S. CA 19-9 in evaluation of adnexal mass: retrospective cohort analysis and review of the literature. Int J Biol Markers 2015; 30: e333-340.

Kelly PJ, Archbold P, Price JH, Cardwell C, McCluggage WG. Serum CA19.9 levels are commonly elevated in primary ovarian mucinous tumours but cannot be used to predict the histological subtype. J Clin Pathol 2010; 63: 169-173.

Bozkurt M, Yumru AE, Aral I. Evaluation of the importance of the serum levels of CA-125, CA15-3, CA-19-9, carcinoembryonic antigen and alpha fetoprotein for distinguishing benign and malignant adnexal masses and contribution of different test combinations to diagnostic accuracy. Eur J Gynaecol Oncol 2013; 34: 540-544.

Dohan A, Hoeffel C, Soyer P, Jannot AS, Valette PJ, Thivolet A, Passot G, Glehen O, Rousset P. Evaluation of the peritoneal carcinomatosis index with CT and MRI. Br J Surg 2017; 104: 1244-1249.

Low RN, Barone RM, Lucero J. Comparison of MRI and CT for predicting the Peritoneal Cancer Index (PCI) preoperatively in patients being considered for cytoreductive surgical procedures. Ann Surg Oncol 2015; 22: 1708-1715.

Torkzad MR, Casta N, Bergman A, Ahlstrom H, Pahlman L, Mahteme H. Comparison between MRI and CT in prediction of peritoneal carcinomatosis index (PCI) in patients undergoing cytoreductive surgery in relation to the experience of the radiologist. J Surg Oncol 2015; 111: 746-751.

Gadelhak B, Tawfik AM, Saleh GA, Batouty NM, Sobh DM, Hamdy O, Refky B. Extended abdominopelvic MRI versus CT at the time of adnexal mass characterization for assessing radiologic peritoneal cancer index (PCI) prior to cytoreductive surgery. Abdom Radiol (NY) 2019; 44: 2254-2261.

Shimada K, Matsumoto K, Mimura T, Ishikawa T, Munechika J, Ohgiya Y, Kushima M, Hirose Y, Asami Y, Iitsuka C, Miyamoto S, Onuki M, Tsunoda H, Matsuoka R, Ichizuka K, Sekizawa A. Ultrasound-based logistic regression model LR2 versus magnetic resonance imaging for discriminating between benign and malignant adnexal masses: a prospective study. Int J Clin Oncol 2018; 23: 514-521.

Dai G, Liang K, Xiao Z, Yang Q, Yang S. A meta-analysis on the diagnostic value of diffusion-weighted imaging on ovarian cancer. J BUON 2019; 24: 2333-2340.

Meng XF, Zhu SC, Sun SJ, Guo JC, Wang X. Diffusion weighted imaging for the differential diagnosis of benign vs. malignant ovarian neoplasms. Oncol Lett 2016; 11: 3795-3802.

Michielsen K, Dresen R, Vanslembrouck R, De Keyzer F Amant F, Mussen E, Leunen K, Berteloot P, Moerman P, Vergote I, Vandecaveye V. Diagnostic value of whole body diffusion-weighted MRI compared to computed tomography for pre-operative, assessment of patients suspected for ovarian cancer. Eur J Cancer 2017; 83: 88-98.

Espada M, Garcia-Flores JR, Jimenez M, Alvarez-Moreno E, De Haro M, Gonzalez-Cortijo L, Hernandez-Cortes G, Martinez-Vega V, Sainz De La Cuesta R. Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging evaluation of intra-abdominal sites of implants to predict likelihood of suboptimal cytoreductive surgery in patients with ovarian carcinoma. Eur Radiol 2013; 23: 2636-2642.

Rizzo S, De Piano F, Buscarino V, Pagan E, Bagnardi V, Zanagnolo V, Colombo N, Maggioni A, Del Grande M, Del Grande F, Bellomi M, Aletti G. Pre-operative evaluation of epithelial ovarian cancer patients: Role of whole body diffusion weighted imaging MR and CT scans in the selection of patients suitable for primary debulking surgery. A single-centre study. Eur J Radiol 2020; 123: 108786.

Gity M, Parviz S, Saligheh Rad H, Fathi Kazerooni A, Shirali E, Shakiba M, Baikpour M. Differentiation of Benign from Malignant Adnexal Masses by Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced MRI (DCE-MRI): Quantitative and Semi-quantitative analysis at 3-Tesla MRI. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 2019; 20: 1073-1079.

Malek M, Oghabian Z, Tabibian E, Rahmani M, Miratashi Yazdi SN, Oghabian MA, Parviz S. Comparison of Qualitative (Time Intensity Curve Analysis), Semi-Quantitative, and Quantitative Multi-Phase 3T DCEMRI Parameters as Predictors of Malignancy in Adnexal. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 2019; 20: 1603-1611.

Thomassin-Naggara I, Balvay D, Aubert E, Darai E, Rouzier R, Cuenod CA, Bazot M. Quantitative dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging analysis of complex adnexal masses: a preliminary study. Eur Radiol 2012; 22: 738-745.

Carter JS, Koopmeiners JS, Kuehn-Hajder JE, Metzger GJ, Lakkadi N, Downs LS Jr, Bolan PJ. Quantitative multiparametric MRI of ovarian cancer. J Magn Reson Imaging 2013; 38: 1501-1509.

He M, Song Y, Li H, Lu J, Li Y, Duan S, Qiang J. Histogram Analysis Comparison of Monoexponential, Advanced Diffusion-Weighted Imaging, and Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced MRI for Differentiating Borderline From Malignant Epithelial Ovarian Tumors. J Magn Reson Imaging 2020; 52: 257-268.

Li HM, Feng F, Qiang JW, Zhang GF, Zhao SH, Ma FH, Li YA, Gu WY. Quantitative dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging for differentiating benign, borderline, and malignant ovarian tumors. Abdom Radiol (NY) 2018; 43: 3132-3141.

Thomassin-Naggara I, Poncelet E, Jalaguier-Coudray A, Guerra A, Fournier LS, Stojanovic S, Millet I, Bharwani N, Juhan V, Cunha TM, Masselli G, Balleyguier C, Malhaire C, Perrot NF, Sadowski EA, Bazot M, Taourel P, Porcher R, Darai E, Reinhold C, Rockall AG. Ovarian-Adnexal Reporting Data System Magnetic Resonance Imaging (O-RADS MRI) Score for Risk Stratification of Sonographically Indeterminate Adnexal Masses. JAMA Netw Open 2020; 3: e1919896.

Dirrichs T, Bauerschlag D, Maass N, Kuhl CK, Schrading S. Impact of Multiparametric MRI (mMRI) on the Therapeutic Management of Adnexal Masses Detected with Transvaginal Ultrasound (TVUS): An Interdisciplinary Management Approach. Acad Radiol 2020; S1076-6332(20)30652-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.acra.2020.11.016.

Ahmed SA, Abou-Taleb H, Yehia A, El Malek NAA, Siefeldein GS, Badary DM, Jabir MA. The accuracy of multi-detector computed tomography and laparoscopy in the prediction of peritoneal carcinomatosis index score in primary ovarian cancer. Acad Radiol 2019; 26: 1650-1658.

Byrom J, Widjaja E, Redman CW, Jones PW, Tebby S. Can pre-operative computed tomography predict resectability of ovarian carcinoma at primary laparotomy? BJOG 2002; 109: 369-375.

Esquivel J, Chua TC, Stojadinovic A, Melero JT, Levine EA, Gutman M, Howard R, Piso P, Nissan A, Gomez-Portilla A, Gonzalez-Bayon L, Gonzalez-Moreno S, Shen P, Stewart JH, Sugarbaker PH, Barone RM, Hoefer R, Morris DL, Sardi A, Sticca RP. Accuracy and clinical relevance of computed tomography scan interpretation of peritoneal cancer index in colorectal cancer peritoneal carcinomatosis: a multi-institutional study. J Surg Oncol 2010; 102: 565-570.

Marin D, Catalano C, Baski M, Di Martino M, Geiger D, Di Giorgio A, Sibio S, Passariello R. 64-Section multi-detector row CT in the preoperative diagnosis of peritoneal carcinomatosis: correlation with histopathological findings. Abdom Imaging 2010; 35: 694-700.

Nasser S, Lazaridis A, Evangelou M, Jones B, Nixon K, Kyrgiou M, Gabra H, Rockall A, Fotopoulou C. Correlation of pre-operative CT findings with surgical & histological tumor dissemination patterns at cytoreduction for primary advanced and relapsed epithelial ovarian cancer: A retrospective evaluation. Gynecol Oncol 2016; 143: 264-269.

Avesani G, Arshad M, Lu H, Fotopoulou C, Cannone F, Melotti R, Aboagye E, Rockall A. Radiological assessment of Peritoneal Cancer Index on preoperative CT in ovarian cancer is related to surgical outcome and survival. Radiol Med 2020; 125: 770-776.

Shim SH, Lee SJ, Kim SO, Kim SN, Kim DY, Lee JJ, Kim JH, Kim YM, Kim YT, Nam JH. Nomogram for predicting incomplete cytoreduction in advanced ovarian cancer patients. Gynecol Oncol 2015; 136: 30-36.

Dowdy SC, Mullany SA, Brandt KR, Huppert BJ, Cliby WA. The utility of computed tomography scans in predicting suboptimal cytoreductive surgery in women with advanced ovarian carcinoma. Cancer 2004; 101: 346-352.

Nelson BE, Rosenfield AT, Schwartz PE. Preoperative abdominopelvic computed tomographic prediction of optimal cytoreduction in epithelial ovarian carcinoma. J Clin Oncol 1993; 11: 166-172.

Bristow RE, Duska LR, Lambrou NC, Fishman EK, O'Neill MJ, Trimble EL, Montz FJ. A model for predicting surgical outcome in patients with advanced ovarian carcinoma using computed tomography. Cancer 2000; 89: 1532-1540.

Gemer O, Gdalevich M, Ravid M, Piura B, Rabinovich A, Gasper T, Khashper A, Voldarsky M, Linov L, Ben Shachar I, Anteby EY, Lavie O. A multicenter validation of computerized tomography models as predictors of non-optimal primary cytoreduction of advanced epithelial ovarian cancer. Eur J Surg Oncol 2009; 35: 1109-1112.

Axtell AE, Lee MH, Bristow RE, Dowdy SC, Cliby WA, Raman S, Weaver JP, Gabbay M, Ngo M, Lentz S, Cass I, Li AJ, Karlan BY, Holschneider CH. Multi-institutional reciprocal validation study of computed tomography predictors of suboptimal primary cytoreduction in patients with advanced ovarian cancer. J Clin Oncol 2007; 25: 384-389.

Rutten MJ, van de Vrie R, Bruining A, Spijkerboer AM, Mol BW, Kenter GG, Buist MR. Predicting surgical outcome in patients with International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stage III or IV ovarian cancer using computed tomography: a systematic review of prediction models. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2015; 25: 407-415.

Kim HJ, Choi CH, Lee YY, Kim TJ, Lee JW, Bae DS, Kim BG. Surgical outcome prediction in patients with advanced ovarian cancer using computed tomography scans and intraoperative findings. Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol 2014; 53: 343-347.

Lu H, Arshad M, Thornton A, Avesani G, Cunnea P, Curry E, Kanavati F, Liang J, Nixon K, Williams ST, Hassan MA, Bowtell DDL, Gabra H, Fotopoulou C, Rockall A, Aboagye EO. A mathematical-descriptor of tumor-mesoscopic-structure from computed-tomography images annotates prognostic- and molecular-phenotypes of epithelial ovarian cancer. Nat Commun 2019; 10: 764.

Tanizaki Y, Kobayashi A, Shiro M, Ota N, Takano R, Mabuchi Y, Yagi S, Minami S, Terada M, Ino K. Diagnostic value of preoperative SUVmax on FDG-PET/CT for the detection of ovarian cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2014; 24: 454-460.

Kitajima K, Suzuki K, Senda M, Kita M, Nakamoto Y, Onishi Y, Maeda T, Yoshikawa T, Ohno Y, Sugimura K. FDG-PET/CT for diagnosis of primary ovarian cancer. Nucl Med Commun 2011; 32: 549-553.

Nam EJ, Yun MJ, Oh YT, Kim JW, Kim JH, Kim S, Jung YW, Kim SW, Kim YT. Diagnosis and staging of primary ovarian cancer: correlation between PET/CT, Doppler US, and CT or MRI. Gynecol Oncol 2010; 116: 389-394.

Castellucci P, Perrone AM, Picchio M, Ghi T, Farsad M, Nanni C, Messa C, Meriggiola MC, Pelusi G, Al-Nahhas A, Rubello D, Fazio F, Fanti S. Diagnostic accuracy of 18F-FDG PET/CT in characterizing ovarian lesions and staging ovarian cancer: correlation with transvaginal ultrasonography, computed tomography, and histology. Nucl Med Commun 2007; 28: 589-595.

Risum S, Hogdall C, Loft A, Berthelsen AK, Hogdall E, Nedergaard L, Lundvall L, Engelholm SA. The diagnostic value of PET/CT for primary ovarian cancer-a prospective study. Gynecol Oncol 2007; 105: 145-149.

Yamamoto Y, Oguri H, Yamada R, Maeda N, Kohsaki S, Fukaya T. Preoperative evaluation of pelvic masses with combined 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography and computed tomography. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2008; 102: 124-127.

Dauwen H, Van Calster B, Deroose CM, Op de Beeck K, Amant F, Neven P, Berteloot P, Leunen K, Timmerman D, Vergote I. PET/CT in the staging of patients with a pelvic mass suspicious for ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol 2013; 131: 694-700.

Laghi A, Bellini D, Rengo M, Accarpio F, Caruso D, Biacchi D, Di Giorgio A, Sammartino P. Diagnostic performance of computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging for detecting peritoneal metastases: systematic review and meta-analysis. Radiol Med 2017; 122: 1-15.

Kim SJ, Lee SW. Diagnostic accuracy of (18)F-FDG PET/CT for detection of peritoneal carcinomatosis; a systematic review and meta-analysis. Br J Radiol 2018; 91: 20170519.

Michielsen K, Vergote I, Op de Beeck K, Amant F, Leunen K, Moerman P, Deroose C, Souverijns G, Dymarkowski S, De Keyzer F, Vandecaveye V. Whole-body MRI with diffusion-weighted sequence for staging of patients with suspected ovarian cancer: a clinical feasibility study in comparison to CT and FDG-PET/CT. Eur Radiol 2014; 24: 889-901.

Barbosa A, Peixoto A, Pinto P, Pinheiro M, Teixeira MR. Potential clinical applications of circulating cell-free DNA in ovarian cancer patients. Expert Rev Mol Med 2018; 20: e6.

Chen Q, Zhang ZH, Wang S, Lang JH. Circulating Cell-Free DNA or Circulating Tumor DNA in the Management of Ovarian and Endometrial Cancer. Onco Targets Ther 2019; 12: 11517-11530.

Giannopoulou L, Kasimir-Bauer S, Lianidou ES. Liquid biopsy in ovarian cancer: recent advances on circulating tumor cells and circulating tumor DNA. Clin Chem Lab Med 2018; 56: 186-197.

Widschwendter M, Zikan M, Wahl B, Lempiainen H, Paprotka T, Evans I, Jones A, Ghazali S, Reisel D, Eichner J, Rujan T, Yang Z, Teschendorff AE, Ryan A, Cibula D, Menon U, Wittenberger T. The potential of circulating tumor DNA methylation analysis for the early detection and management of ovarian cancer. Genome Med 2017; 9: 116.

Guo YX, Neoh KH, Chang XH, Sun Y, Cheng HY, Ye X, Ma RQ, Han RPS, Cui H. Diagnostic value of HE4+ circulating tumor cells in patients with suspicious ovarian cancer. Oncotarget 2018; 9: 7522-7533.

Kolostova K, Matkowski R, Jedryka M, Soter K, Cegan M, Pinkas M, Jakabova A, Pavlasek J, Spicka J, Bobek V. The added value of circulating tumor cells examination in ovarian cancer staging. Am J Cancer Res 2015; 5: 3363-3375.

Li B, Pu K, Ge L, Wu X. Diagnostic significance assessment of the circulating cell-free DNA in ovarian cancer: An updated meta-analysis. Gene 2019; 714: 143993.

Li N, Zuo H, Chen L, Liu H, Zhou J, Yao Y, Xu B, Gong H, Weng Y, Hu Q, Song Q, Peng M, Cheng Y. Circulating Tumor Cell Detection In Epithelial Ovarian Cancer Using Dual-Component Antibodies Targeting EpCAM And FRalpha. Cancer Manag Res 2019; 11: 10939-10948.

Lou E, Vogel RI, Teoh D, Hoostal S, Grad A, Gerber M, Monu M, Lukaszewski T, Deshpande J, Linden MA, Geller MA. Assessment of Circulating Tumor Cells as a Predictive Biomarker of Histology in Women With Suspected Ovarian Cancer. Lab Med 2018; 49: 134-139.

Phallen J, Sausen M, Adleff V, Leal A, Hruban C, White J, Anagnostou V, Fiksel J, Cristiano S, Papp E, Speir S, Reinert T, Orntoft MW, Woodward BD, Murphy D, Parpart-Li S, Riley D, Nesselbush M, Sengamalay N, Georgiadis A, Li QK, Madsen MR, Mortensen FV, Huiskens J, Punt C, van Grieken N, Fijneman R, Meijer G, Husain H, Scharpf RB, Diaz LA, Jr., Jones S, Angiuoli S, Orntoft T, Nielsen HJ, Andersen CL, Velculescu VE. Direct detection of early-stage cancers using circulating tumor DNA. Sci Transl Med 2017; 9: eaan2415.

Suh DH, Kim M, Choi JY, Bu J, Kang YT, Kwon BS, Lee B, Kim K, No JH, Kim YB, Cho YH. Circulating tumor cells in the differential diagnosis of adnexal masses. Oncotarget 2017; 8: 77195-77206.

Vanderstichele A, Busschaert P, Smeets D, Landolfo C, Van Nieuwenhuysen E, Leunen K, Neven P, Amant F, Mahner S, Braicu EI, Zeilinger R, Coosemans A, Timmerman D, Lambrechts D, Vergote I. Chromosomal Instability in Cell-Free DNA as a Highly Specific Biomarker for Detection of Ovarian Cancer in Women with Adnexal Masses. Clin Cancer Res 2017; 23: 2223-2231.

Yu Z, Qin S, Wang H. Alter circulating cell-free DNA variables in plasma of ovarian cancer patients. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 2019; 45: 2237-2242.

Zhou Q, Li W, Leng B, Zheng W, He Z, Zuo M, Chen A. Circulating Cell Free DNA as the Diagnostic Marker for Ovarian Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. PLoS One 2016; 11: e0155495.

Van Holsbeke C, Van Calster B, Guerriero S, Savelli L, Paladini D, Lissoni AA, Czekierdowski A, Fischerova D, Zhang J, Mestdagh G, Testa AC, Bourne T, Valentin L, Timmerman D. Endometriomas: their ultrasound characteristics. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2010; 35: 730-740.

Paladini D, Testa A, Van Holsbeke C, Mancari R, Timmerman D, Valentin L. Imaging in gynecological disease (5): clinical and ultrasound characteristics in fibroma and fibrothecoma of the ovary. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2009; 34: 188-195.

Demidov VN, Lipatenkova J, Vikhareva O, Van Holsbeke C, Timmerman D, Valentin L. Imaging of gynecological disease (2): clinical and ultrasound characteristics of Sertoli cell tumors, Sertoli-Leydig cell tumors and Leydig cell tumors. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2008; 31: 85-91.

Savelli L, Testa AC, Timmerman D, Paladini D, Ljungberg O, Valentin L. Imaging of gynecological disease (4): clinical and ultrasound characteristics of struma ovarii. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2008; 32: 210-219.

Virgilio BA, De Blasis I, Sladkevicius P, Moro F, Zannoni GF, Arciuolo D, Mascilini F, Ciccarone F, Timmerman D, Kaijser J, Fruscio R, Van Holsbeke C, Franchi D, Epstein E, Leone FPG, Guerriero S, Czekierdowski A, Scambia G, Testa AC, Valentin L. Imaging in gynecological disease (16): clinical and ultrasound characteristics of serous cystadenofibromas in adnexa. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2019; 54: 823-830.

Moro F, Zannoni GF, Arciuolo D, Pasciuto T, Amoroso S, Mascilini F, Mainenti S, Scambia G, Testa AC. Imaging in gynecological disease (11): clinical and ultrasound features of mucinous ovarian tumors. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2017; 50: 261-270.

Dierickx I, Valentin L, Van Holsbeke C, Jacomen G, Lissoni AA, Licameli A, Testa A, Bourne T, Timmerman D. Imaging in gynecological disease (7): clinical and ultrasound features of Brenner tumors of the ovary. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2012; 40: 706-713.

Timor-Tritsch IE, Lerner JP, Monteagudo A, Murphy KE, Heller DS. Transvaginal sonographic markers of tubal inflammatory disease. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1998; 12: 56-66.

Franchi D, Boveri S, Fruscio R, Fischerova D, Guerriero S, Moruzzi MC, Colombo N, Timmerman D, Valentin L, Testa AC. Imaging in gynecological disease (8): ultrasound characteristics of recurrent borderline ovarian tumors. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2013; 41: 452-458.

Moro F, Baima Poma C, Zannoni GF, Vidal Urbinati A, Pasciuto T, Ludovisi M, Moruzzi MC, Carinelli S, Franchi D, Scambia G, Testa AC. Imaging in gynecological disease (12): clinical and ultrasound features of invasive and non-invasive malignant serous ovarian tumors. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2017; 50: 788-799.

Landolfo C, Valentin L, Franchi D, Van Holsbeke C, Fruscio R, Froyman W, Sladkevicius P, Kaijser J, Ameye L, Bourne T, Savelli L, Coosemans A, Testa A, Timmerman D. Differences in ultrasound features of papillations in unilocular-solid adnexal cysts: a retrospective international multicenter study. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2018; 52: 269-278.

Kurman RJ, Carcangiu ML, Herrington S, Young RH (eds). WHO Classification of Tumours of Female Reproductive Organs, 4th edn. IARC: Lyon, 2014.

Moro F, Magoga G, Pasciuto T, Mascilini F, Moruzzi MC, Fischerova D, Savelli L, Giunchi S, Mancari R, Franchi D, Czekierdowski A, Froyman W, Verri D, Epstein E, Chiappa V, Guerriero S, Zannoni GF, Timmerman D, Scambia G, Valentin L, Testa AC. Imaging in gynecological disease (13): clinical and ultrasound characteristics of endometrioid ovarian cancer. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2018; 52: 535-543.

Pozzati F, Moro F, Pasciuto T, Gallo C, Ciccarone F, Franchi D, Mancari R, Giunchi S, Timmerman D, Landolfo C, Epstein E, Chiappa V, Fischerova D, Fruscio R, Zannoni GF, Valentin L, Scambia G, Testa AC. Imaging in gynecological disease (14): clinical and ultrasound characteristics of ovarian clear cell carcinoma. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2018; 52: 792-800.

Van Holsbeke C, Domali E, Holland TK, Achten R, Testa AC, Valentin L, Jurkovic D, Moerman P, Timmerman D. Imaging of gynecological disease (3): clinical and ultrasound characteristics of granulosa cell tumors of the ovary. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2008; 31: 450-456.

Guerriero S, Testa AC, Timmerman D, Van Holsbeke C, Ajossa S, Fischerova D, Franchi D, Leone FP, Domali E, Alcazar JL, Parodo G, Mascilini F, Virgilio B, Demidov VN, Lipatenkova J, Valentin L. Imaging of gynecological disease (6): clinical and ultrasound characteristics of ovarian dysgerminoma. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2011; 37: 596-602.

Anfelter P, Testa A, Chiappa V, Froyman W, Fruscio R, Guerriero S, Alcazar JL, Mascillini F, Pascual MA, Sibal M, Savelli L, Zannoni GF, Timmerman D, Epstein E. Imaging in gynecological disease (17): ultrasound features of malignant ovarian yolk sac tumors (endodermal sinus tumors). Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2020; 56: 276-284.

Corrigendum. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2020; 56: 966. DOI: 10.1002/uog.23526.

Moro F, Castellano LM, Franchi D, Epstein E, Fischerova D, Froyman W, Timmerman D, Zannoni GF, Scambia G, Valentin L, Testa AC, Mascilini F. Imaging in gynecological disease: clinical and ultrasound characteristics of ovarian embryonal carcinomas, non-gestational choriocarcinomas and malignant mixed germ cell tumors. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2020. DOI: 10.1002/uog.23529.

Testa AC, Ferrandina G, Timmerman D, Savelli L, Ludovisi M, Van Holsbeke C, Malaggese M, Scambia G, Valentin L. Imaging in gynecological disease (1): ultrasound features of metastases in the ovaries differ depending on the origin of the primary tumor. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2007; 29: 505-511.

Ludovisi M, De Blasis I, Virgilio B, Fischerova D, Franchi D, Pascual MA, Savelli L, Epstein E, Van Holsbeke C, Guerriero S, Czekierdowski A, Zannoni G, Scambia G, Jurkovic D, Rossi A, Timmerman D, Valentin L, Testa AC. Imaging in gynecological disease (9): clinical and ultrasound characteristics of tubal cancer. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2014; 43: 328-335.

Primary retroperitoneal nodal endometrioid carcinoma associated with Lynch syndrome: A case report

Benign descriptors and ADNEX in two-step strategy to estimate risk of malignancy in ovarian tumors: retrospective validation in IOTA5 multicenter cohort

Conservative Management of Asymptomatic Adnexal Masses Classified as Benign by the IOTA ADNEX Model: A Prospective Multicenter Portuguese Study