Elizabeth A Sadowski1, Atul B Shinagare2, Hyesun Park3, Olga R Brook4, Rosemarie Forstner5, Sumer K Wallace6, Jeanne M Horowitz7, Neil Horowitz8, Marcia Javitt9, Priyanka Jha10, Aki Kido11, Yulia Lakhman12, Susanna I Lee13, Lucia Manganaro14, Katherine E Maturen15, Stephanie Nougaret16, Liina Poder17, Gaiane M Rauch18, Caroline Reinhold19, Evis Sala20, Isabelle Thomassin-Naggara21, Herbert Alberto Vargas12, Aradhana Venkatesan22, Olivera Nikolic23, Andrea G Rockall24. 1. Departments of Radiology, Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, 600 Highland Ave, E3/372, Madison, WI, 53792-3252, USA. 2. Department of Radiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital/Harvard Medical School, 75 Francis Street, Boston, MA, 02115, USA. ashinagare@bwh.harvard.edu. 3. Department of Radiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital/Harvard Medical School, 75 Francis Street, Boston, MA, 02115, USA. 4. Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, 1 Deaconess Rd, Boston, MA, 02215, USA. 5. Department of Radiology, Universitätsklinikum Salzburg, PMU Salzburg, Müllner Hauptstr. 48, 5020, Salzburg, Austria. 6. Division of Gynecologic Oncology, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, 600 Highland Ave. H4/664A, Madison, WI, 53792, USA. 7. Department of Radiology, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, 676 N Saint Clair, Chicago, IL, 60611, USA. 8. Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, 75 Francis Street, Boston, MA, 02115, USA. 9. Medical Imaging, Rambam Health Care Campus, Haifa, Israel. 10. Department of Radiology, University of California San Francisco, 505 Parnassus Avenue, Box 0628, San Francisco, CA, 94143-0628, USA. 11. Department of Diagnostic Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Kyoto University Hospital, 54 Shogoinkawahara-cho, Sakyo-ku, Kyoto City, Kyoto, 6068507, Japan. 12. Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 300 East 66 Street, New York, NY, 10065, USA. 13. Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, 55 Fruit Street, White 270, Boston, MA, 02114, USA. 14. Department of Radiological, Oncological and Pathological Sciences, Sapienza University of Rome, V.le Regina Elena, 324 00161, Rome, Italy. 15. Department of Radiology and Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Michigan Hospitals, 1500 E Med Ctr Dr, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109, USA. 16. Department of Radiology, IRCM INSERM, U1194 SIRIC, Montpellier, France. 17. Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, UCSF, 505 Parnassus Ave, L-374, San Francisco, CA, 94143-0628, USA. 18. University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd, Houston, TX, 77030, USA. 19. Augmented Intelligence & Precision Health Laboratory of the Research Institute of McGill University Health Centre, McGill University, Montreal, Canada, 1001 Decarie boul., Montreal, Quebec, H4A 3J1, Canada. 20. Department of Radiology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge Biomedical Campus, Box 218, Cambridge, CB2 0QQ, UK. 21. Sorbonne Université, Assistance Publique - Hôpitaux de Paris, Service d'Imagerie, 4 rue de la Chine, 75020, Paris, France. 22. Division of Diagnostic Imaging, Department of Abdominal Imaging, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1400 Pressler St., FCT 15.6074, MSC 1182, Houston, TX, 77030, USA. 23. Clinical Center of Vojvodina, Center of Radiology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Novi Sad, 1-9 Hajduk Veljkova str. 21000, Novi Sad, Serbia. 24. Division of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, Hammersmith Campus, ICTEM Building, Du Cane Rd, London, W12 0NN, UK.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Imaging evaluation is an essential part of treatment planning for patients with ovarian cancer. Variation in the terminology used for describing ovarian cancer on computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance (MR) imaging can lead to ambiguity and inconsistency in clinical radiology reports. The aim of this collaborative project between Society of Abdominal Radiology (SAR) Uterine and Ovarian Cancer (UOC) Disease-focused Panel (DFP) and the European Society of Uroradiology (ESUR) Female Pelvic Imaging (FPI) Working Group was to develop an ovarian cancer reporting lexicon for CT and MR imaging. METHODS: Twenty-one members of the SAR UOC DFP and ESUR FPI working group, one radiology clinical fellow, and two gynecologic oncology surgeons formed the Ovarian Cancer Reporting Lexicon Committee. Two attending radiologist members of the committee prepared a preliminary list of imaging terms that was sent as an online survey to 173 radiologists and gynecologic oncologic physicians, of whom 67 responded to the survey. The committee reviewed these responses to create a final consensus list of lexicon terms. RESULTS: An ovarian cancer reporting lexicon was created for CT and MR Imaging. This consensus-based lexicon has 6 major categories of terms: general, adnexal lesion-specific, peritoneal carcinomatosis-specific, lymph node-specific, metastatic disease -specific, and fluid-specific. CONCLUSIONS: This lexicon for CT and MR imaging evaluation of ovarian cancer patients has the capacity to improve the clarity and consistency of reporting disease sites seen on imaging. KEY POINTS: • This reporting lexicon for CT and MR imaging provides a list of consensus-based, standardized terms and definitions for reporting sites of ovarian cancer on imaging at initial diagnosis or follow-up. • Use of standardized terms and morphologic imaging descriptors can help improve interdisciplinary communication of disease extent and facilitate optimal patient management. • The radiologists should identify and communicate areas of disease, including difficult to resect or potentially unresectable disease that may limit the ability to achieve optimal resection.
OBJECTIVES: Imaging evaluation is an essential part of treatment planning for patients with ovarian cancer. Variation in the terminology used for describing ovarian cancer on computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance (MR) imaging can lead to ambiguity and inconsistency in clinical radiology reports. The aim of this collaborative project between Society of Abdominal Radiology (SAR) Uterine and Ovarian Cancer (UOC) Disease-focused Panel (DFP) and the European Society of Uroradiology (ESUR) Female Pelvic Imaging (FPI) Working Group was to develop an ovarian cancer reporting lexicon for CT and MR imaging. METHODS: Twenty-one members of the SAR UOC DFP and ESUR FPI working group, one radiology clinical fellow, and two gynecologic oncology surgeons formed the Ovarian Cancer Reporting Lexicon Committee. Two attending radiologist members of the committee prepared a preliminary list of imaging terms that was sent as an online survey to 173 radiologists and gynecologic oncologic physicians, of whom 67 responded to the survey. The committee reviewed these responses to create a final consensus list of lexicon terms. RESULTS: An ovarian cancer reporting lexicon was created for CT and MR Imaging. This consensus-based lexicon has 6 major categories of terms: general, adnexal lesion-specific, peritoneal carcinomatosis-specific, lymph node-specific, metastatic disease -specific, and fluid-specific. CONCLUSIONS: This lexicon for CT and MR imaging evaluation of ovarian cancer patients has the capacity to improve the clarity and consistency of reporting disease sites seen on imaging. KEY POINTS: • This reporting lexicon for CT and MR imaging provides a list of consensus-based, standardized terms and definitions for reporting sites of ovarian cancer on imaging at initial diagnosis or follow-up. • Use of standardized terms and morphologic imaging descriptors can help improve interdisciplinary communication of disease extent and facilitate optimal patient management. • The radiologists should identify and communicate areas of disease, including difficult to resect or potentially unresectable disease that may limit the ability to achieve optimal resection.
Authors: Rochelle F Andreotti; Dirk Timmerman; Beryl R Benacerraf; Genevieve L Bennett; Tom Bourne; Douglas L Brown; Beverly G Coleman; Mary C Frates; Wouter Froyman; Steven R Goldstein; Ulrike M Hamper; Mindy M Horrow; Marta Hernanz-Schulman; Caroline Reinhold; Lori M Strachowski; Phyllis Glanc Journal: J Am Coll Radiol Date: 2018-08-24 Impact factor: 5.532
Authors: Ailbhe C O'Neill; Bhanusupriya Somarouthu; Sree Harsha Tirumani; Marta Braschi-Amirfarzan; Annick D Van den Abbeele; Nikhil H Ramaiya; Atul B Shinagare Journal: Radiology Date: 2016-08-01 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Atul B Shinagare; Ailbhe C O'Neill; SuChun Cheng; Bhanusupriya Somarouthu; Sree H Tirumani; Mizuki Nishino; Annick D Van den Abbeele; Nikhil H Ramaiya Journal: Radiology Date: 2015-06-05 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Hebert Alberto Vargas; Erich P Huang; Yulia Lakhman; Joseph E Ippolito; Priya Bhosale; Vincent Mellnick; Atul B Shinagare; Maria Anello; Justin Kirby; Brenda Fevrier-Sullivan; John Freymann; C Carl Jaffe; Evis Sala Journal: Radiology Date: 2017-06-22 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Oguz Akin; Evis Sala; Chaya S Moskowitz; Nicole Ishill; Robert A Soslow; Dennis S Chi; Hedvig Hricak Journal: Radiology Date: 2008-06-02 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Jonathan Frederik Carlsen; Tina Nørgaard Munch; Adam Espe Hansen; Steen Gregers Hasselbalch; Alexander Malcolm Rykkje Journal: Neuroradiology Date: 2022-07-24 Impact factor: 2.995