Advertisement

Zusammenfassung

Die sonographische Untersuchung von Uterus und Adnexen ist eine Standardmethode zur Abklärung von Symptomen und gelingt zuverlässig mit der Transvaginalsonographie (TVS). Dabei sollten formelle Kriterien bei der Befunderhebung und -dokumentation eingehalten werden. Bei der Differenzialdiagnose von Läsionen an den Ovarien gelingt erfahrenen Untersuchern bei 90 % der Tumoren durch Wiedererkennung von spezifischen sonomorphologischen Bildern eine zutreffende Dignitätseinschätzung. Die Ergebnisse der multimodalen Screeningstudien für das Ovarialkarzinom belegen eine hohe Entdeckungsrate für das Ovarialkarzinom, jedoch ist der erhoffte Überlebensvorteil zweifelhaft. Im Risikokollektiv gelingt es auch durch ein engmaschiges simultanes Screening mittels Tumormarker und TVS nicht, Tuben- und Ovarialkarzinome zuverlässig in frühen Erkrankungsstadien zu entdecken. Die Kombination von transvaginaler und transabdomineller Sonographie ist als präoperative Stagingmethode beim Ovarialkarzinom ähnlich gut geeignet, eine Peritonealkarzinose zu diagnostizieren wie die Computertomographie oder die Kernspintomographie. Jedoch ist die Sensitivität der Sonographie für eine abdominelle Lymphknoteninfiltration ungenügend.

Literatur

  1. Alcázar JL, Jurado M (2011) Three-dimensional ultrasound for assessing women with gynecological cancer: a systematic review. Gynecol Oncol 120: 340–346Google Scholar
  2. Andersen MR, Lowe KA, Goff BA (2014) Value of symptom-triggered diagnostic evaluation for ovarian cancer. Obstet Gynecol 123: 73–79Google Scholar
  3. Buyss SS, Patridge E, Greene MH, PLCO Project Team et al (2005) Ovarian cancer screening in the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian (PLOC) cancer screening trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol 193: 1630–1639Google Scholar
  4. Buys SS, Partridge E, Black A, Johnson CC, Lamerato L, Isaacs C, Reding DJ, Greenlee RT, Yokochi LA, Kessel B, Crawford ED, Church TR, Andriole GL, Weissfeld JL, Fouad MN, Chia D, O’Brien B, Ragard LR, Clapp JD, Rathmell JM, Riley TL, Hartge P, Pinsky PF, Zhu CS, Izmirlian G, Kramer BS, Miller AB, Xu JL, Prorok PC, Gohagan JK, Berg CD, PLCO Project Team (2011) Effect of screening on ovarian cancer mortality: the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian (PLCO) cancer screening randomized controlled trial. JAMA 305: 2295–2303Google Scholar
  5. Campbell S, Bhan V, Royston P, Whitehead MI, Collins WP (1989) Transabdominal ultrasound screening for ovarian cancer. Brit Med J 299: 1363–1367Google Scholar
  6. Doroudi M, Kramer BS, Pinsky PF (2016) The bimanual ovarian palpation examination in the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian Cancer screening trial: performance and complications. J Med Screen [e-pub ahead of print]Google Scholar
  7. Ebell MH, Culp M, Lastinger K, Dasigi T (2015) A systematic review of the bimanual examination as a test for ovarian cancer. Am J Prev Med 48: 350–356Google Scholar
  8. Fischerova D (2011) Ultrasound scanning of the pelvis and abdomen for staging of gynecological tumors: a review. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 38: 246–266Google Scholar
  9. Fischerova D, Cibula D (2015) Ultrasound in gynecological cancer: is it time for re-evaluation of its uses? Curr Oncol Rep 17: 28Google Scholar
  10. Fischerova D, Zikan M, Semeradova I, Slama J, Kocian R, Dundr P, Nemejcova K, Burgetova A, Dusek L, Cibula D (2017) Ultrasound in preoperative assessment of pelvic and abdominal spread in patients with ovarian cancer: a prospective study. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 49: 263–274Google Scholar
  11. Fishman DA, Leeber C, Blank SV, Shulmann L, Singh D, Bozorgi K, Tamura R, Timor-Tritsch I, Schwartz PE (2005) The role of ultrasound evaluation in the detection of early-stage epithelial ovarian cancer. Am J Obstet Gynecol 192: 1214–1222Google Scholar
  12. Fleischer A (2002) Sonographic assessment of the morphology and vascularity of ovarian masses. Ultrasound Quarterly 18: 81–88Google Scholar
  13. Fung MF, Bryson P, Johnston M, Chambers A; Cancer Care Ontario Practice Guidelines Initiative Gynecology Cancer Disease Site Group (2004) Screening postmenopausal women for ovarian cancer: a systematic review. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 26: 717–728Google Scholar
  14. Gatreh-Samani F, Tarzamni MK, Olad-Sahebmadarek E, Dastranj A, Afrough A (2011) Accuracy of 64-multidetector computed tomography in diagnosis of adnexal tumors. J Ovarian Res 17: 4–15Google Scholar
  15. Germer U (2007a) Dopplerultraschall. In: Gyn update. Heidelberg: SpringerGoogle Scholar
  16. Germer U (2007b) 3D-Ultraschall. In: Gyn update. Heidelberg: SpringerGoogle Scholar
  17. Gilbert L, Basso O, Sampalis J, Karp I, Martins C, Feng J, Piedimonte S, Quintal L, Ramanakumar AV, Takefman J, Grigorie MS, Artho G, Krishnamurthy S; DOvE Study Group (2012) Assessment of symptomatic women for early diagnosis of ovarian cancer: results from the prospective DOvE pilot project. Lancet Oncol 13: 285–291Google Scholar
  18. Grab D, Merz E, Prömpeler H, Eichhorn KH, Germer U, Osmers R, Strauss A, Wisser J, Dürr W (2011) Standards for ultrasound in gynecology. Ultraschall Med 32: 415–417Google Scholar
  19. Henrich W, Fotopoulou C, Fuchs I (2007) Value of preoperative transvaginal sonography (TVS) in the description of tumor pattern in ovarian cancer patients: results of a prospective study. Anticancer Research 27: 4289–4294Google Scholar
  20. Hensley ML, Robson ME, Kauff ND, Korytowsky B, Castiel M, Ostroff J, Hurley K, Hann LE, Colon J, Spriggs D (2003) Pre- and postmenopausal women undergoing screening for ovarian cancer: anxiety, risk perceptions, and quality of life. Gynecol Oncol 89: 440–406Google Scholar
  21. Jacobs I, Menon U (2011) Can ovarian cancer screening save lives? The question remains unanswered. Obstet Gynecol 118: 1209–1211Google Scholar
  22. Jacobs I, Oram D (1988) Screening for ovarian cancer. Biomed Pharmacother 42: 589–596Google Scholar
  23. Jacobs I, Oram D, Fairbanks J, Turner J, Frost C and Grudzinskas JG (1990) A risk of malignancy index incorporating CA125, ultrasound and menopausal status for the accurate preoperative diagnosis of ovarian cancer. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 97: 922–929Google Scholar
  24. Jacobs I, Skates S, MacDonald N et al (1999) Screening for ovarian cancer. A pilot randomised controlled trial. Lancet 353: 1207–1209Google Scholar
  25. Jacobs I, Mackay J, Menon U, Skates SJ, Rosenthal AN, Fraser L (2006) Familial ovarian screening – effective or ineffective? Br J Canc 95: 1124Google Scholar
  26. Jacobs IJ, Menon U, Ryan A, Gentry-Maharaj A, Burnell M, Kalsi JK, Amso NN, Apostolidou S, Benjamin E, Cruickshank D, Crump DN, Davies SK, Dawnay A, Dobbs S, Fletcher G, Ford J, Godfrey K, Gunu R, Habib M, Hallett R, Herod J, Jenkins H, Karpinskyj C, Leeson S, Lewis SJ, Liston WR, Lopes A, Mould T, Murdoch J, Oram D, Rabideau DJ, Reynolds K, Scott I, Seif MW, Sharma A, Singh N, Taylor J, Warburton F, Widschwendter M, Williamson K, Woolas R, Fallowfield L, McGuire AJ, Campbell S, Parmar M, Skates SJ (2016) Ovarian cancer screening and mortality in the UK Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening (UKCTOCS): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 387: 945–56. Erratum in: Lancet 2016; 387: 944Google Scholar
  27. Jurkovic D, Mavrelos D (2007) Catch me if you scan: ultrasound diagnosis of ectopic pregnancy. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol Review 30: 1–7Google Scholar
  28. Kaijser J, Sayasneh A, Van Hoorde K, Ghaem-Maghami S, Bourne T, Timmerman D, Van Calster B (2014) Presurgical diagnosis of adnexal tumors using mathematical models and scoring systems: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod Update 20: 449–462Google Scholar
  29. Kinkel K, Hricak H, Lu Y, Tsuda K, Filly RA (2000) Ultrasound characterization of ovarian masses. A meta-analysis. Radiology 217: 803–811Google Scholar
  30. Kobayashi H, Yamada Y, Sado T, Sakata M, Yoshida S, Kawaguchi R, Kanayama S, Shigetomi H, Haruta S, Tsuji Y, Ueda S, Kitanaka T (2008) A randomized study of screening for ovarian cancer: a multicenter study in Japan. Int J Gynecol Cancer 18: 414–420Google Scholar
  31. Leitlinienprogramm Onkologie (Deutsche Krebsgesellschaft, Deutsche Krebshilfe, AWMF) (2016) S3-Leitlinie Diagnostik, Therapie und Nachsorge maligner Ovarialtumoren, Langversion 2.0 2016, AWMF-Registernummer: 032/035OL, http://leitlinienprogramm-onkologie.de/Ovarialkarzinom.61.0.html
  32. Maymon R, Herman A, Ariely S, Dreazen E, Buckovsky I, Weinraub Z (2000) Three-dimensional vaginal sonography in obstetrics and gynecology. Hum Reprod Update 6: 475–478Google Scholar
  33. Menon U, Gentry-Maharaj A, Hallett R, Ryan A, Burnell M, Sharma A, Lewis S, Davies S, Philpott S, Lopes A, Godfrey K, Oram D, Herod J, Williamson K, Seif MW, Scott I, Mould T, Woolas R, Murdoch J, Dobbs S, Amso NN, Leeson S, Cruickshank D, McGuire A, Campbell S, Fallowfield L, Singh N, Dawnay A, Skates SJ, Parmar M, Jacobs I (2009) Sensitivity and specificity of multimodal and ultrasound screening for ovarian cancer, and stage distribution of detected cancers: results of the prevalence screen of the UK Collaborative Trail von Ovarian Cancer Screening (UKCTOCS). Lancet Oncol 10: 327–340Google Scholar
  34. Merz E, Miric-Tesanic D, Bahlmann F, Weber G, Wellek S (1996) Sonographic size of uterus and ovaries in pre- and postmenopausal women. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 7: 38–42Google Scholar
  35. Meys EM, Kaijser J, Kruitwagen RF, Slangen BF, Van Calster B, Aertgeerts B, Verbakel JY, Timmerman D, Van Gorp T (2016) Subjective assessment versus ultrasound models to diagnose ovarian cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Cancer 58: 17–29Google Scholar
  36. 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 (2014) 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 24: 889–901Google Scholar
  37. Modesitt SC, Pavlik EJ, Ueland FR, DePriest PD, Kryscio RJ, van Nagell Jr JR (2003) Risk of malignancy in unilocular ovarian cystic tumors less than 10 centimeters in diameter. Obstet Gynecol 102: 594–599Google Scholar
  38. National Collaborating Centre for Cancer (UK) (2011) Ovarian cancer: The recognition and initial management of ovarian cancer. Cardiff (UK): National Collaborating Centre for Cancer. PMID: 22479719Google Scholar
  39. Oei AL, Massuger LF, Bulten J, Ligtenberg MJ, Hoogerbrugge N, de Hullu JA (2006) Surveillance of women at high risk for hereditary ovarian cancer is inefficient. Br J Canc 95: 814–819Google Scholar
  40. Ore RM, Baldwin L, Woolum D, Elliott E, Wijers C, Chen CY, Miller RW, DeSimone CP, Ueland FR, Kryscio RJ, Nagell JR, Pavlik EJ (2017) Symptoms relevant to surveillance for ovarian cancer. Diagnostics (Basel) 7 (1) pii: E18Google Scholar
  41. Outwater EK, Siegelman ES, Hunt JL (2001) Ovarian teratomas: tumor types and imaging characteristics. Radiographics 21: 475–490Google Scholar
  42. Paladini D, Testa A, Van Holsbeke C, Mancari R, Timmerman D, Valentin L (2009) Imaging in gynecological disease: clinical and ultrasound characteristics in fibroma and fibrothecoma of the ovary. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 34: 188–195Google Scholar
  43. Pinsky PF, Yu K, Kramer BS, Black A, Buys SS, Partridge E, Gohagan J, Berg CD, Prorok PC (2016) Extended mortality results for ovarian cancer screening in the PLCO trial with median 15 years follow-up. Gynecol Oncol 143: 270–275Google Scholar
  44. Robert Koch-Institut (Hrsg) und die Gesellschaft der epidemiologischen Krebsregister in Deutschland e.V. (2015) Krebs in Deutschland 2011/2012. 10. Ausgabe, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  45. Rosenthal AN, Fraser L, Manchanda R, Badman P, Philpott S, Mozersky J, Hadwin R, Cafferty FH, Benjamin E, Singh N, Evans DG, Eccles DM, Skates SJ, Mackay J, Menon U, Jacobs IJ (2013) Results of annual screening in phase I of the United Kingdom familial ovarian cancer screening study highlight the need for strict adherence to screening schedule. J Clin Oncol 31: 49–57Google Scholar
  46. Rosenthal AN, Fraser LSM, Philpott S, Manchanda R, Burnell M, Badman P, Hadwin R, Rizzuto I, Benjamin E, Singh N, Evans DG, Eccles DM, Ryan A, Liston R, Dawnay A, Ford J, Gunu R, Mackay J, Skates SJ, Menon U, Jacobs IJ; United Kingdom Familial Ovarian Cancer Screening Study collaborators (2017) Evidence of stage shift in women diagnosed with ovarian cancer during phase II of the United Kingdom Familial Ovarian Cancer Screening Study. J Clin Oncol 35: 1411–1420Google Scholar
  47. Saunders BA, Podzielinski I, Ware RA, Goodrich S, DeSimone CP, Ueland FR, Seamon L, Ubellacker J, Pavlik EJ, Kryscio RJ, van Nagell Jr JR (2010) Risk of malignancy in sonographically confirmed septated cystic ovarian tumors. Gynecol Oncol 118: 278–282Google Scholar
  48. Savelli L, de Iaco P, Ghi T, Bovicelli L, Rosati F, Cacciatore B (2004) Transvaginal sonographic appearance of peritoneal pseudocysts. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 23: 284–288Google Scholar
  49. Savelli L, De Iaco P, Ceccaroni M (2005) Transvaginal sonographic features of peritoneal carcinomatosis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 26: 552–557Google Scholar
  50. Savelli L, Ghi T, De Iaco P, Ceccaroni M, Venturoli S, Cacciatore B (2006) Paraovarian/paratubal cysts: comparison of transvaginal sonographic and pathological findings to establish diagnostic criteria. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 28: 330–334Google Scholar
  51. Sharma A, Gentry-Maharaj A, Burnell M, Campbell S, Amso NN, Seif MW, Fletcher G, Brunell C, Turner G, Rangar R, Ryan A, Jacobs I, Menon U (2012) Assessing the malignant potential of ovarian inclusion cysts in postmenopausal women within the UK Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening (UKCTOCS): a prospective cohort study. BJOG 119: 207–219Google Scholar
  52. Sharma A, Burnell M, Gentry-Maharaj A, Campbell S, Amso NN, Seif MW, Fletcher G, Brunell C, Turner G, Rangar R, Ryan A, Jacobs I, Menon U (2016) Quality assurance and its impact on ovarian visualization rates in the multicenter United Kingdom Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening (UKCTOCS). Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 47: 228–235Google Scholar
  53. Skates SJ, Greene MH, Buys SS, Mai PL, Brown PH, Piedmonte M, Rodriguez GC, Schorge JO, Sherman M, Daly MB, Rutherford TJ, Brewster WR, O’Malley DM, Partridge EE, Boggess J, Drescher CW, Isaacs C, Berchuck A, Domchek SM, Davidson SA, Edwards RP, Elg SA, Wakeley K, Phillips KA, Armstrong DK, Horowitz IR, Fabian CJ, Walker J, Sluss PM, Welch WR, Minasian L, Horick N, Kasten CH, Nayfield S, Alberts DS, Finkelstein DM, Lu K (2017) Early detection of ovarian cancer using the risk of ovarian cancer algorithm with frequent CA125 testing in women at increased familial risk – combined results from two screening trials. Clin Cancer Res 23: 3628–3637Google Scholar
  54. Sohaib SA, Mills TD, Sahdev A, et al (2005) The role of magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasound in patients with adnexal mass. Clin Radiol 60: 340–348Google Scholar
  55. Sokalska A, Valentin L (2008) Changes in ultrasound morphology of the uterus and ovaries during the menopausal transition and early postmenopause: a 4-year longitudinal study. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 31: 210–217Google Scholar
  56. Sun Z, Gilbert L, Ciampi A, Kaufman JS, Basso O (2016) Estimating the prevalence of ovarian cancer symptoms in women aged 50 years or older: problems and possibilities. Am J Epidemiol 184: 670–680Google Scholar
  57. Tailor A, Bourne TH, Campbell S, Okokon E, Dew T, Collins WP (2006) Results from an ultrasound-based familial ovarian cancer screening clinic: a 10-year observational study. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 21: 378–385Google Scholar
  58. Taylor A, Jurkovic D, Bourne TH , Collins WP, Campbell S (1997) Sonographic prediction of malignancy in adnexal masses using multivariate logistic regression analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 10: 41–47Google Scholar
  59. Testa AC, Ferrandina G, Timmerman D, Savelli L, Ludovisi M, Van Holsbeke C, Malaggese M, Scambia G, Valentin L (2007) Imaging in gynecological disease : ultrasound features of metastases in the ovaries differ depending on the origin of the primary tumor. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 29: 505–511Google Scholar
  60. Testa AC, Ludovisi M, Mascilini F, Di Legge A, Malaggese M, Fagotti A, Fanfani F, Salerno MG, Ercoli A, Scambia G, Ferrandina G (2012) Ultrasound evaluation of intra-abdominal sites of disease to predict likelihood of suboptimal cytoreduction in advanced ovarian cancer: a prospective study. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 39: 99–105Google Scholar
  61. Testa A, Kaijser J, Wynants L, Fischerova D, Van Holsbeke C, Franchi D, Savelli L, Epstein E, Czekierdowski A, Guerriero S, Fruscio R, Leone FP, Vergote I, Bourne T, Valentin L, Van Calster B, Timmerman D (2014) Strategies to diagnose ovarian cancer: new evidence from phase 3 of the multicentre international IOTA study. Br J Cancer 111: 680–688Google Scholar
  62. Timmerman D, Bourne TH, Taylor A, Collins WP, Verrelst H, Vandenberghe K, Vergote I (1999) A comparison of methods for preoperative discrimination between malignant and benign adnexal masses: the development of a new logistic regression model. Am J Obstet Gynecol 181: 57–65Google Scholar
  63. Timmerman D, Valentin L, Bourne TH, Collins WP, Verrelst H, Vergote I (2000) 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 16: 500–505Google Scholar
  64. 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 (2010) Simple ultrasound rules to distinguish between benign and malignant adnexal masses before surgery: prospective validation by IOTA group. BMJ 341: c6839Google Scholar
  65. 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 FP, Rossi A, Landolfo C, Vergote I, Bourne T, Valentin L (2016) Predicting the risk of malignancy in adnexal masses based on the Simple Rules from the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis Group. Am J Obstet Gynecol 214: 424–437Google Scholar
  66. Tingulstad S, Hagen B, Skjeldestad FE, Onsrud M, Kiserud T, Halvorsen T, Nustad K (1996) Evaluation of a risk of malignancy index based on serum CA125, ultrasound findings and menopausal status in the pre-operative diagnosis of pelvic masses. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 103: 826–831Google Scholar
  67. Tsili AC, Tsampoulas C, Charisiadi A, Kalef-Ezra J, Dousias V, Paraskevaidis E, Efremidis SC (2008) Adnexal masses: accuracy of detection and differentiation with multidetector computed tomography. Gynecol Oncol 110: 22–31Google Scholar
  68. Valentin L (2006) Imaging in gynecology. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynecol 20: 881–906Google Scholar
  69. Valentin L, Hagen B, Tingulstad S, Eik-Nes S (2001) Comparison of »pattern recognition« and logistic regression models for discrimination between benign and malignant pelvic masses: a prospective cross validation. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 18: 357–365Google Scholar
  70. Valentin L, Ameye L, Jurkovic D, Metzger U, Lecurus F, Van Huffel S, Timmermann D (2006) Which extrauterine pelvic masses are difficult to correctly classify as benign or malignant on the basis of ultrasound findings and is there a way of making a correct diagnosis? Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 27: 438–444Google Scholar
  71. Valentin L, Ameye L, Savelli L, Fruscio R, Leone FP, Czekierdowski A, Lissoni AA, Fischerova D, Guerriero S, Van Holsbeke C, Van Huffel S, Timmerman D (2011) Adnexal masses difficult to classify as benign or malignant using subjective assessment of gray-scale and Doppler ultrasound findings: logistic regression models do not help. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 38: 456–465Google Scholar
  72. Valentin L, Ameye L, Franchi D, Guerriero S, Jurkovic D, Savelli L, Fischerova D, Lissoni A, Van Holsbeke C, Fruscio R, Van Huffel S, Testa A, Timmerman D (2013) Risk of malignancy in unilocular cysts: a study of 1148 adnexal masses classified as unilocular cysts at transvaginal ultrasound and review of the literature. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 41: 80–89Google Scholar
  73. 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; International Ovarian Tumour Analysis Group (2014) 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 349: g5920Google Scholar
  74. Van Calster B, Van Hoorde K, Froyman W, Kaijser J, Wynants L, Landolfo C, Anthoulakis C, Vergote I, Bourne T, Timmerman D (2015) Practical guidance for applying the ADNEX model from the IOTA group to discriminate between different subtypes of adnexal tumors. Facts Views Vis Obgyn 7: 32–41Google Scholar
  75. Van Holsbeke C, Domali E, Holland TK, Achten R, Testa AC, Valentin L, Jurkovic D, Moerman P, Timmerman D (2008) Imaging of gynecological disease: clinical and ultrasound characteristics of granulosa cell tumors of the ovary. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 31: 450–456Google Scholar
  76. Van Holsbeke C, Van Calster B, Testa AC, Domali E, Lu C, Van Huffel S, Valentin L, Timmerman D (2009) Prospective internal validation of mathematical models to predict malignancy in adnexal masses: results from the international ovarian tumor analysis study. Clin Cancer Res 15: 684–691Google Scholar
  77. 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 (2010) Endometriomas: their ultrasound characteristics. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 35: 730–740Google Scholar
  78. 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 (2012) External validation of diagnostic models to estimate the risk of malignancy in adnexal masses. Clin Cancer Res 18: 815–825Google Scholar
  79. Van Nagell J Jr, DePriest PD, Reedy MB, Gallion HH, Ueland FR, Pavlik EJ, Kryscio RJ (2000) The efficiacy of transvaginal sonographic screening in asymptomatic women at risk for ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol 77: 350–356Google Scholar
  80. Van Nagell Jr JR, Miller RW, DeSimone CP, Ueland FR, Podzielinski I, Goodrich ST, Elder JW, Huang B, Kryscio RJ, Pavlik EJ (2011) Long-term survival of women with epithelial ovarian cancer detected by ultrasonographic screening. Obstet Gynecol 118: 1212–1221Google Scholar
  81. Weinberger V, Fischerova D, Semeradova I, Slama J, Dundr P, Dusek L, Cibula D, Zikan M (2016) Prospective evaluation of ultrasound accuracy in the detection of pelvic carcinomatosis in patients with ovarian cancer. Ultrasound Med Biol 42: 2196–2202Google Scholar
  82. Zurawski VR, Knapp RC, Einhorn N, Kenemans P, Mortel R, Ohmi K, Bast RC Jr, Ritts RE Jr, Malkasian G (1988) An initial analysis of preoperative serum CA 125 levels in patients with early stage ovarian carcinoma. Gynecol Oncol 30: 7–14Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Deutschland 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Klinik für Frauenheilkunde und GeburtshilfeCaritas-Krankenhaus St. JosefRegensburgDeutschland

Personalised recommendations