Background and objectives: An expert’s subjective assessment is still the most reliable evaluation of adnexal pathology, thus raising the need for methods less dependent on the examiner’s experience. The aim of this study was to evaluate the performance of standardized methods when applied by examiners with different levels of experience and to suggest the most suitable method for less-experienced gynecologists. Materials and methods: This single-center retrospective study included 50 cases of histologically proven first-time benign or malignant adnexal pathology. Three examiners evaluated the same transvaginal ultrasound images: an expert (level III), a 4th year resident in gynecology (level I), and a final year medical student after basic training (labeled as level 0). The assessment methods included subjective evaluation, Simple Rules (SR) with and without algorithm, ADNEX and Gynecologic Imaging Reporting and Data System (GI-RADS) models. Sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, positive and negative predictive values with 95% confidence interval were calculated. Results: Out of 50 cases, 33 (66%) were benign and 17 (34%) were malignant adnexal masses. Using only SR, level III could classify 48 (96%), level I—41 (82%) and level 0—40 (80%) adnexal lesions. Using SR and algorithm, the performance improved the most for all levels and yielded sensitivity and specificity of 100% for level III, 100% and 97% for level I, 94.4% and 100% for level 0, respectively. Compared to subjective assessment, ADNEX lowered the accuracy of level III evaluation from 97.9% to 88% and GI-RADS had no impact. ADNEX and GI-RADS improved the sensitivity up to 100% for the less experienced; however, the specificity and accuracy were notably decreased. Conclusions: SR and SR+ algorithm have the most potential to improve not only sensitivity, but also specificity and accuracy, irrespective of the experience level. ADNEX and GI-RADS can yield sensitivity of 100%; however, the accuracy is decreased.

In this study, we conducted a comparative analysis of demographic, histopathological, and sonographic characteristics between pre- and postmenopausal women diagnosed with endometrial cancer, while also examining sonographic and anthropometric features in ‘low’ and ‘intermediate/high-risk’ cases, stratified by menopausal status. Our analysis, based on data from the International Endometrial Tumor Analysis (IETA) 4 cohort comprising 1538 women (161 premenopausal, 1377 postmenopausal) with biopsy-confirmed endometrial cancer, revealed that premenopausal women, compared to their postmenopausal counterparts, exhibited lower parity (median 1, IQR 0–2 vs. 1, IQR 1–2, p = 0.001), a higher family history of colon cancer (16% vs. 7%, p = 0.001), and smaller waist circumferences (median 92 cm, IQR 82–108 cm vs. 98 cm, IQR 87–112 cm, p = 0.002). Premenopausal women more often had a regular endometrial–myometrial border (39% vs. 23%, p < 0.001), a visible endometrial midline (23% vs. 11%, p < 0.001), and undefined tumor (73% vs. 84%, p = 0.001). Notably, despite experiencing a longer duration of abnormal uterine bleeding (median 5 months, IQR 3–12 vs. 3 months, 2–6, p < 0.001), premenopausal women more often had ‘low’ risk disease (78% vs. 46%, p < 0.001). Among sonographic and anthropometric features, only an irregular endometrial–myometrial border was associated with ‘intermediate/high’ risk in premenopausal women. Conversely, in postmenopausal women, multiple features correlated with ‘intermediate/high’ risk disease. Our findings emphasize the importance of considering menopausal status when evaluating sonographic features in women with endometrial cancer.