Literature DB >> 23969786

Frequency and disposition of ovarian abnormalities followed with serial transvaginal ultrasonography.

Edward J Pavlik1, Frederick R Ueland, Rachel W Miller, Jessalyn M Ubellacker, Christopher P DeSimone, Jeffrey Elder, John Hoff, Lauren Baldwin, Richard J Kryscio, John R van Nagell.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To examine the prevalence, incidence, persistence, and resolution of ovarian abnormalities using serial transvaginal ultrasonography.
METHODS: A group of 39,337 women in the University of Kentucky Ovarian Cancer Screening Program were monitored with 221,576 baseline and interval transvaginal ultrasonography.
RESULTS: The transvaginal ultrasonogram was normal for first and all subsequent visits for 31,834 participants (80.9%), whereas 6,807 women (17.3%) had transvaginal ultrasonograms interpreted as abnormal and were monitored over 21,588 ultrasonograms. Ovarian cysts were more common in premenopausal (prevalence 34.9%, incidence 15.3%) than in postmenopausal women (prevalence 17.0%, incidence 8.2%). For the group with abnormalities, the initial transvaginal ultrasonogram was abnormal in 46.7% of the cases, of which 63.2% resolved to normal on subsequent ultrasonograms. Of 35,314 cases classified as normal on the first examination, 9.9% were abnormal on subsequent annual examinations. The abnormal findings were classified as follows: unilocular cysts (11.5%), cysts with septations (9.8%), cysts with solid areas (7.1%), and solid masses (1.8%). Many transvaginal ultrasonographic abnormalities were followed to resolution. Surgery was performed on 557 participants for 85 ovarian malignancies and 472 nonmalignancies. Over the duration of the study, the positive predictive value (PPV) increased from 8.1% to 24.7%.
CONCLUSION: Serial ultrasonography has shown that many ovarian abnormalities resolve, even if the initial appearance is complex, solid, or bilateral. Thus, it is advantageous to avoid a single transvaginal ultrasonographic abnormality as the sole trigger for surgery and to take a measured serial approach to reduce false-positive results and increase the PPV. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23969786     DOI: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e318298def5

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Obstet Gynecol        ISSN: 0029-7844            Impact factor:   7.661


  25 in total

1.  Demographic, clinical, dispositional, and social-environmental characteristics associated with psychological response to a false positive ovarian cancer screening test: a longitudinal study.

Authors:  Amanda T Wiggins; Edward J Pavlik; Michael A Andrykowski
Journal:  J Behav Med       Date:  2017-10-25

2.  Risk of Malignant Ovarian Cancer Based on Ultrasonography Findings in a Large Unselected Population.

Authors:  Rebecca Smith-Bindman; Liina Poder; Eric Johnson; Diana L Miglioretti
Journal:  JAMA Intern Med       Date:  2019-01-01       Impact factor: 21.873

3.  Natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery-assisted versus laparoscopic ovarian cystectomy (NAOC vs. LOC): a case-matched study.

Authors:  Chin-Jung Wang; Pei-Yin Wu; Hsin-Hong Kuo; Hsing-Tse Yu; Chen-Ying Huang; Hsiao-Tseng Tseng
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2015-07-03       Impact factor: 4.584

4.  Life-threatening haemoperitoneum secondary to rupture of simple ovarian cyst.

Authors:  Christiane Nyhsen; Syed Umair Mahmood
Journal:  BMJ Case Rep       Date:  2014-11-25

5.  Affective, cognitive and behavioral outcomes associated with a false positive ovarian cancer screening test result.

Authors:  Amanda T Wiggins; Edward J Pavlik; Michael A Andrykowski
Journal:  J Behav Med       Date:  2017-04-21

Review 6.  In 2014, can we do better than CA125 in the early detection of ovarian cancer?

Authors:  Joshua G Cohen; Matthew White; Ana Cruz; Robin Farias-Eisner
Journal:  World J Biol Chem       Date:  2014-08-26

7.  Diagnostic Value of Risk of Malignancy Algorithm (ROMA) in Adnexal Masses.

Authors:  Vijay Kumar; Shiv Rajan; Sameer Gupta; Naseem Akhtar; Sonali Sharma; Punnet Sinha; Sanjeev Misra; Arun Chaturvedi
Journal:  J Obstet Gynaecol India       Date:  2019-12-23

8.  Survival of Women With Type I and II Epithelial Ovarian Cancer Detected by Ultrasound Screening.

Authors:  John R van Nagell; Brian T Burgess; Rachel W Miller; Lauren Baldwin; Christopher P DeSimone; Frederick R Ueland; Bin Huang; Quan Chen; Richard J Kryscio; Edward J Pavlik
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2018-11       Impact factor: 7.623

Review 9.  Fertility-Sparing Treatment for Early-Stage Cervical, Ovarian, and Endometrial Malignancies.

Authors:  Roni Nitecki; Terri Woodard; J Alejandro Rauh-Hain
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2020-12       Impact factor: 7.623

10.  Limitations of three-dimensional power Doppler angiography in preoperative evaluation of ovarian tumors.

Authors:  Liliane Silvestre; Wellington P Martins; Francisco J Candido-Dos-Reis
Journal:  J Ovarian Res       Date:  2015-07-29       Impact factor: 4.234

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.