B A Virgilio1,2, I De Blasis1, P Sladkevicius3, F Moro4, G F Zannoni5, D Arciuolo6, F Mascilini4, F Ciccarone4, D Timmerman7, J Kaijser7, R Fruscio8, C Van Holsbeke9, D Franchi10, E Epstein11,12, F P G Leone13, S Guerriero14, A Czekierdowski15, G Scambia4, A C Testa1,16, L Valentin3,17. 1. Istituto di Ginecologia ed Ostetricia, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome, Italy. 2. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Policlinico Hospital, Abano Terme, Padua, Italy. 3. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Skåne University Hospital, Malmö, Sweden. 4. Dipartimento Scienze della Salute della Donna, del Bambino e di Sanità Pubblica, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli, IRCCS, Rome, Italy. 5. Dipartimento Scienze della Salute della Donna e del Bambino, Unità di Ginecopatologia, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli, IRCCS, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome, Italy. 6. Dipartimento Scienze della Salute della Donna e del Bambino, Unità di Ginecopatologia, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli, IRCCS, Rome, Italy. 7. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospitals, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Leuven, Belgium. 8. Clinic of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Department of Medicine and Surgery, San Gerardo Hospital, University of Milan-Bicocca, Monza, Italy. 9. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Ziekenhuis Oost-Limburg, Genk, Belgium. 10. Preventive Gynecology Unit, Division of Gynecology, European Institute of Oncology, IRCCS, Milan, Italy. 11. Department of Clinical Science and Education, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden. 12. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Södersjukhuset, Stockholm, Sweden. 13. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Clinical Sciences Institute, L. Sacco, Milan, Italy. 14. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Cagliari, Policlinico Universitario Duilio Casula, Monserrato, Cagliari, Italy. 15. First Department of Gynecological Oncology and Gynecology, Medical University of Lublin, Lublin, Poland. 16. Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli, IRCCS, Rome, Italy. 17. Institution of Clinical Sciences Malmö, Lund University, Lund, Sweden.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To describe the clinical and ultrasound characteristics of serous cystadenofibromas in the adnexa. METHODS: This was a retrospective study of patients identified in the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis (IOTA) database, who had a histological diagnosis of serous cystadenofibroma and had undergone preoperative ultrasound examination by an experienced ultrasound examiner, between 1999 and 2012. In the IOTA database, which contains data collected prospectively, the tumors were described using the terms and definitions of the IOTA group. In addition, three authors reviewed, first independently and then together, ultrasound images of serous cystadenofibromas and described them using pattern recognition. RESULTS: We identified 233 women with a histological diagnosis of serous cystadenofibroma. In the IOTA database, most cystadenofibromas (67.4%; 157/233) were described as containing solid components but 19.3% (45/233) were described as multilocular cysts and 13.3% (31/233) as unilocular cysts. Papillary projections were described in 52.4% (122/233) of the cystadenofibromas. In 79.5% (97/122) of the cysts with papillary projections, color Doppler signals were absent in the papillary projections. Most cystadenofibromas (83.7%; 195/233) manifested no or minimal color Doppler signals. On retrospective analysis of 201 ultrasound images of serous cystadenofibromas, using pattern recognition, 10 major types of ultrasound appearance were identified. The most common pattern was a unilocular solid cyst with one or more papillary projections, but no other solid components (25.9%; 52/201). The second most common pattern was a multilocular solid mass with small solid component(s), but no papillary projections (19.4%; 39/201). The third and fourth most common patterns were multi- or bilocular cyst (16.9%; 34/201) and unilocular cyst (11.9%; 24/201). Using pattern recognition, shadowing was identified in 39.8% (80/201) of the tumors, and microcystic appearance of the papillary projections was observed in 34 (38.6%) of the 88 tumors containing papillary projections. CONCLUSIONS: The ultrasound features of serous cystadenofibromas vary. The most common pattern is a unilocular solid cyst with one or more papillary projections but no other solid components, with absent color Doppler signals. Most serous cystadenofibromas were poorly vascularized on color Doppler examination and many manifested acoustic shadowing.
OBJECTIVE: To describe the clinical and ultrasound characteristics of serous cystadenofibromas in the adnexa. METHODS: This was a retrospective study of patients identified in the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis (IOTA) database, who had a histological diagnosis of serous cystadenofibroma and had undergone preoperative ultrasound examination by an experienced ultrasound examiner, between 1999 and 2012. In the IOTA database, which contains data collected prospectively, the tumors were described using the terms and definitions of the IOTA group. In addition, three authors reviewed, first independently and then together, ultrasound images of serous cystadenofibromas and described them using pattern recognition. RESULTS: We identified 233 women with a histological diagnosis of serous cystadenofibroma. In the IOTA database, most cystadenofibromas (67.4%; 157/233) were described as containing solid components but 19.3% (45/233) were described as multilocular cysts and 13.3% (31/233) as unilocular cysts. Papillary projections were described in 52.4% (122/233) of the cystadenofibromas. In 79.5% (97/122) of the cysts with papillary projections, color Doppler signals were absent in the papillary projections. Most cystadenofibromas (83.7%; 195/233) manifested no or minimal color Doppler signals. On retrospective analysis of 201 ultrasound images of serous cystadenofibromas, using pattern recognition, 10 major types of ultrasound appearance were identified. The most common pattern was a unilocular solid cyst with one or more papillary projections, but no other solid components (25.9%; 52/201). The second most common pattern was a multilocular solid mass with small solid component(s), but no papillary projections (19.4%; 39/201). The third and fourth most common patterns were multi- or bilocular cyst (16.9%; 34/201) and unilocular cyst (11.9%; 24/201). Using pattern recognition, shadowing was identified in 39.8% (80/201) of the tumors, and microcystic appearance of the papillary projections was observed in 34 (38.6%) of the 88 tumors containing papillary projections. CONCLUSIONS: The ultrasound features of serous cystadenofibromas vary. The most common pattern is a unilocular solid cyst with one or more papillary projections but no other solid components, with absent color Doppler signals. Most serous cystadenofibromas were poorly vascularized on color Doppler examination and many manifested acoustic shadowing.
Authors: Dirk Timmerman; François Planchamp; Tom Bourne; Chiara Landolfo; Andreas du Bois; Luis Chiva; David Cibula; Nicole Concin; Daniela Fischerova; Wouter Froyman; Guillermo Gallardo Madueño; Birthe Lemley; Annika Loft; Liliana Mereu; Philippe Morice; Denis Querleu; Antonia Carla Testa; Ignace Vergote; Vincent Vandecaveye; Giovanni Scambia; Christina Fotopoulou Journal: Int J Gynecol Cancer Date: 2021-06-10 Impact factor: 3.437
Authors: Ben Van Calster; Lil Valentin; Wouter Froyman; Chiara Landolfo; Jolien Ceusters; Antonia C Testa; Laure Wynants; Povilas Sladkevicius; Caroline Van Holsbeke; Ekaterini Domali; Robert Fruscio; Elisabeth Epstein; Dorella Franchi; Marek J Kudla; Valentina Chiappa; Juan L Alcazar; Francesco P G Leone; Francesca Buonomo; Maria Elisabetta Coccia; Stefano Guerriero; Nandita Deo; Ligita Jokubkiene; Luca Savelli; Daniela Fischerová; Artur Czekierdowski; Jeroen Kaijser; An Coosemans; Giovanni Scambia; Ignace Vergote; Tom Bourne; Dirk Timmerman Journal: BMJ Date: 2020-07-30