50毫米以上出血性卵巢囊肿:超声专家评估的价值。

IF 2.4 4区 医学 Q2 ACOUSTICS
Alan Zhu, Mark Sugi, Scott W Young, Tara A Morgan, Maitray D Patel
{"title":"50毫米以上出血性卵巢囊肿:超声专家评估的价值。","authors":"Alan Zhu, Mark Sugi, Scott W Young, Tara A Morgan, Maitray D Patel","doi":"10.1002/jum.70081","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Evaluate the value of ultrasound specialist assessment of ovarian masses over 50 mm with sonograms interpreted as possible hemorrhagic ovarian cysts (HOC).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Retrospective review of consecutive endovaginal pelvic US reports of premenopausal women at one organization identified adnexal masses over 50 mm maximum diameter designated as possibly being HOC (large HOC). Four ultrasound specialists reviewed studies, scoring two assessments as true or false: 1) US features are most consistent with either an ovarian hemorrhagic cyst (HOC) or endometrioma; 2) If assessment 1 was true, the mass meets O-RADS criteria of classic HOC except for size.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 457 of 51,305 women (0.9%) had reports indicating possible large HOC. For 366 patients with established outcomes, 225 (61.5%) had a large HOC (87.1% ≤ 70 mm). Assessment 1 was true for 318 patients; outcomes showed 224 (70.4%) HOC, 89 (28.0%) endometriomas, 4 (1.3%) TOAs, and 1 (0.3%) cystadenoma. Assessment 1 was false for 48 patients; outcomes showed 1 (2.1%) HOC, 1 (2.1%) endometrioma, 6 (12.5%) other non-neoplastic cysts, 33 (68.8%) benign neoplasms, 5 (10.4%) borderline tumors, and 2 (4.2%) high-grade malignancies. The decrease in neoplasms and malignancies with true assessment 1 was significant (p < .001). Assessment 2 was true for 190 patients (180 [94.7%] HOC, 9 [4.7%] endometrioma, 1 [0.5%] cystadenoma), false for 128 patients (44 [34.4%] HOC, 80 [62.5%] endometrioma, and 4 [3.1%] TOA) (p < .001), and not applicable for 48 patients.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Ultrasound specialist review of adnexal masses designated as a possible large HOC adds value since over 10% are neoplasms (nearly 2% malignant). Ultrasound specialist assessment can expedite additional imaging or intervention when necessary and obviate follow-up when HOC features are typical.</p>","PeriodicalId":17563,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Hemorrhagic Ovarian Cysts over 50 mm: Value of Ultrasound Specialist Assessment.\",\"authors\":\"Alan Zhu, Mark Sugi, Scott W Young, Tara A Morgan, Maitray D Patel\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/jum.70081\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Evaluate the value of ultrasound specialist assessment of ovarian masses over 50 mm with sonograms interpreted as possible hemorrhagic ovarian cysts (HOC).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Retrospective review of consecutive endovaginal pelvic US reports of premenopausal women at one organization identified adnexal masses over 50 mm maximum diameter designated as possibly being HOC (large HOC). Four ultrasound specialists reviewed studies, scoring two assessments as true or false: 1) US features are most consistent with either an ovarian hemorrhagic cyst (HOC) or endometrioma; 2) If assessment 1 was true, the mass meets O-RADS criteria of classic HOC except for size.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 457 of 51,305 women (0.9%) had reports indicating possible large HOC. For 366 patients with established outcomes, 225 (61.5%) had a large HOC (87.1% ≤ 70 mm). Assessment 1 was true for 318 patients; outcomes showed 224 (70.4%) HOC, 89 (28.0%) endometriomas, 4 (1.3%) TOAs, and 1 (0.3%) cystadenoma. Assessment 1 was false for 48 patients; outcomes showed 1 (2.1%) HOC, 1 (2.1%) endometrioma, 6 (12.5%) other non-neoplastic cysts, 33 (68.8%) benign neoplasms, 5 (10.4%) borderline tumors, and 2 (4.2%) high-grade malignancies. The decrease in neoplasms and malignancies with true assessment 1 was significant (p < .001). Assessment 2 was true for 190 patients (180 [94.7%] HOC, 9 [4.7%] endometrioma, 1 [0.5%] cystadenoma), false for 128 patients (44 [34.4%] HOC, 80 [62.5%] endometrioma, and 4 [3.1%] TOA) (p < .001), and not applicable for 48 patients.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Ultrasound specialist review of adnexal masses designated as a possible large HOC adds value since over 10% are neoplasms (nearly 2% malignant). Ultrasound specialist assessment can expedite additional imaging or intervention when necessary and obviate follow-up when HOC features are typical.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":17563,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1002/jum.70081\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ACOUSTICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/jum.70081","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ACOUSTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:探讨超声专家对50 mm以上卵巢肿块诊断为出血性卵巢囊肿(HOC)的价值。方法:回顾性回顾一个组织绝经前妇女阴道内盆腔连续报告,发现最大直径超过50mm的附件肿块可能为HOC(大HOC)。四位超声专家回顾了研究,对两种评估进行了真假评分:1)超声特征与卵巢出血性囊肿(HOC)或子宫内膜异位瘤最一致;2)如果评价1成立,则质量除尺寸外满足经典HOC的O-RADS标准。结果:51,305名女性中有457名(0.9%)报告可能存在较大的HOC。在366例已确定结局的患者中,225例(61.5%)有较大的HOC(87.1%≤70 mm)。评估1对318例患者成立;结果显示:HOC 224例(70.4%),子宫内膜异位瘤89例(28.0%),toa 4例(1.3%),囊腺瘤1例(0.3%)。评估1错误48例;结果显示:1例(2.1%)HOC, 1例(2.1%)子宫内膜瘤,6例(12.5%)其他非肿瘤性囊肿,33例(68.8%)良性肿瘤,5例(10.4%)交界性肿瘤,2例(4.2%)高度恶性肿瘤。结论:超声专家检查被指定为可能的大HOC的附件肿块增加了价值,因为超过10%是肿瘤(近2%是恶性的)。超声专家评估可以在必要时加快额外的成像或干预,当有典型的HOC特征时可以避免随访。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Hemorrhagic Ovarian Cysts over 50 mm: Value of Ultrasound Specialist Assessment.

Objectives: Evaluate the value of ultrasound specialist assessment of ovarian masses over 50 mm with sonograms interpreted as possible hemorrhagic ovarian cysts (HOC).

Methods: Retrospective review of consecutive endovaginal pelvic US reports of premenopausal women at one organization identified adnexal masses over 50 mm maximum diameter designated as possibly being HOC (large HOC). Four ultrasound specialists reviewed studies, scoring two assessments as true or false: 1) US features are most consistent with either an ovarian hemorrhagic cyst (HOC) or endometrioma; 2) If assessment 1 was true, the mass meets O-RADS criteria of classic HOC except for size.

Results: A total of 457 of 51,305 women (0.9%) had reports indicating possible large HOC. For 366 patients with established outcomes, 225 (61.5%) had a large HOC (87.1% ≤ 70 mm). Assessment 1 was true for 318 patients; outcomes showed 224 (70.4%) HOC, 89 (28.0%) endometriomas, 4 (1.3%) TOAs, and 1 (0.3%) cystadenoma. Assessment 1 was false for 48 patients; outcomes showed 1 (2.1%) HOC, 1 (2.1%) endometrioma, 6 (12.5%) other non-neoplastic cysts, 33 (68.8%) benign neoplasms, 5 (10.4%) borderline tumors, and 2 (4.2%) high-grade malignancies. The decrease in neoplasms and malignancies with true assessment 1 was significant (p < .001). Assessment 2 was true for 190 patients (180 [94.7%] HOC, 9 [4.7%] endometrioma, 1 [0.5%] cystadenoma), false for 128 patients (44 [34.4%] HOC, 80 [62.5%] endometrioma, and 4 [3.1%] TOA) (p < .001), and not applicable for 48 patients.

Conclusions: Ultrasound specialist review of adnexal masses designated as a possible large HOC adds value since over 10% are neoplasms (nearly 2% malignant). Ultrasound specialist assessment can expedite additional imaging or intervention when necessary and obviate follow-up when HOC features are typical.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.10
自引率
4.30%
发文量
205
审稿时长
1.5 months
期刊介绍: The Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine (JUM) is dedicated to the rapid, accurate publication of original articles dealing with all aspects of medical ultrasound, particularly its direct application to patient care but also relevant basic science, advances in instrumentation, and biological effects. The journal is an official publication of the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine and publishes articles in a variety of categories, including Original Research papers, Review Articles, Pictorial Essays, Technical Innovations, Case Series, Letters to the Editor, and more, from an international bevy of countries in a continual effort to showcase and promote advances in the ultrasound community. Represented through these efforts are a wide variety of disciplines of ultrasound, including, but not limited to: -Basic Science- Breast Ultrasound- Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound- Dermatology- Echocardiography- Elastography- Emergency Medicine- Fetal Echocardiography- Gastrointestinal Ultrasound- General and Abdominal Ultrasound- Genitourinary Ultrasound- Gynecologic Ultrasound- Head and Neck Ultrasound- High Frequency Clinical and Preclinical Imaging- Interventional-Intraoperative Ultrasound- Musculoskeletal Ultrasound- Neurosonology- Obstetric Ultrasound- Ophthalmologic Ultrasound- Pediatric Ultrasound- Point-of-Care Ultrasound- Public Policy- Superficial Structures- Therapeutic Ultrasound- Ultrasound Education- Ultrasound in Global Health- Urologic Ultrasound- Vascular Ultrasound
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信