Antioxidative/oxidative balance is one of the important factors for homeostasis. Antioxidative systems which protect from peroxidative damage are supposed to be under the influence of steroid hormones. The implications of this influence are age and gender as well as tissue dependent alterations in antioxidative enzyme activities. Apart from hormonal influence, antioxidative enzymes require the presence of microelements in their active centers as well as concerted action of non enzymatic antioxidants which support enzymes in their scavenging action. The aim of this review is to analyze and compare existing knowledge about the changes in activity of antioxidant enzymes in human and animal females and males of different age. Evidence as regards participation of oxidative stress in senescence are specific diseases which, to some extent, are gender dependent and appear more frequently in males or females. Several experiments in laboratory animals revealed that changes in enzyme activities are reflected in histopathological pictures of cells. The alterations observed during perimenopausal period provide with additional evidence of the participation of steroid hormones in the regulation of antioxidative system activity. Moreover, estrogens themselves exhibit antioxidative activity which is receptor independent. In conclusion, apart from genetic-related influences, also diet and style of life may have an impact on the antioxidative system which requires appropriate supplementation in microelements and vitamins for its effective function of scavenging excess of free radicals.

Background: Sonography based methods with various tumor markers are currently used to discriminate the type of adnexal masses. Objective: To compare the predictive value of selected sonography-based models along with subjective assessment in ovarian cancer prediction. Material and methods: We analyzed data of 271 women operated because of adnexal masses. All masses were verified by histological examination. Preoperative sonography was performed in all patients and various predictive models includ¬ing IOTA group logistic regression model LR1 (LR1), IOTA simple ultrasound-based rules by IOTA (SR), GI-RADS and risk of malignancy index (RMI3) were used. ROC curves were constructed and respective AUC’s with 95% CI’s were compared. Results: Of 271 masses 78 proved to be malignant including 6 borderline tumors. LR1 had sensitivity of 91.0%, specificity of 91.2%, AUC = 0.95 (95% CI: 0.92–0.98). Sensitivity for GI-RADS for 271 patients was 88.5% with specificity of 85% and AUC = 0.91 (95% CI: 0.88–0.95). Subjective assessment yielded sensitivity and specificity of 85.9% and 96.9%, respectively with AUC = 0.97 (95% CI: 0.94–0.99). SR were applicable in 236 masses and had sensitivity of 90.6% with specificity of 95.3% and AUC = 0.93 (95% CI 0.89–0.97). RMI3 was calculated only in 104 women who had CA125 available and had sensitivity of 55.3%, specificity of 94% and AUC = 0.85 (95% CI: 0.77–0.93). Conclusions: Although subjective assessment by the ultrasound expert remains the best current method of adnexal tumors preoperative discrimination, the simplicity and high predictive value favor the IOTA SR method, and when not applicable, the IOTA LR1 or GI-RADS models to be primarily and effectively used. Background: Sonography based methods with various tumor markers are currently used to discriminate the type of adnexal masses. Objective: To compare the predictive value of selected sonography-based models along with subjective assessment in ovarian cancer prediction. Material and methods: We analyzed data of 271 women operated because of adnexal masses. All masses were verified by histological examination. Preoperative sonography was performed in all patients and various predictive models includ¬ing IOTA group logistic regression model LR1 (LR1), IOTA simple ultrasound-based rules by IOTA (SR), GI-RADS and risk of malignancy index (RMI3) were used. ROC curves were constructed and respective AUC’s with 95% CI’s were compared. Results: Of 271 masses 78 proved to be malignant including 6 borderline tumors. LR1 had sensitivity of 91.0%, specificity of 91.2%, AUC = 0.95 (95% CI: 0.92–0.98). Sensitivity for GI-RADS for 271 patients was 88.5% with specificity of 85% and AUC = 0.91 (95% CI: 0.88–0.95). Subjective assessment yielded sensitivity and specificity of 85.9% and 96.9%, respectively with AUC = 0.97 (95% CI: 0.94–0.99). SR were applicable in 236 masses and had sensitivity of 90.6% with specificity of 95.3% and AUC = 0.93 (95% CI 0.89–0.97). RMI3 was calculated only in 104 women who had CA125 available and had sensitivity of 55.3%, specificity of 94% and AUC = 0.85 (95% CI: 0.77–0.93). Conclusions: Although subjective assessment by the ultrasound expert remains the best current method of adnexal tumors preoperative discrimination, the simplicity and high predictive value favor the IOTA SR method, and when not applicable, the IOTA LR1 or GI-RADS models to be primarily and effectively used.

Background: To evaluate the accuracy of subjective assessment (SA), the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis (IOTA) group Simple Rules Risk (SRR) and the Assessment of Different NEoplasias in the adneXa (ADNEX) model for the preoperative differentiation of adnexal masses in pregnant women. Methods: The study population comprised 36 pregnant women (median age: 28.5 years old, range: 20–42 years old) with a mean gestation age of 13.5 (range: 8–31) weeks at diagnosis. Tumors were prospectively classified by local sonographers as probably benign or probably malignant using SA. Final tumor histological diagnosis was used as the reference standard in all cases. Logistic regression SRR and ADNEX models were used to obtain a risk score for every case. Serum CA125 and human epidydimis protein 4 (HE4) concentrations were also retrieved and the Risk of Ovarian Malignancy Algorithm (ROMA) value was calculated. The calculated predictive values included positive and negative likelihood ratios of ultrasound and biochemical tests. Results: Final histology confirmed 27 benign and 9 malignant (including 2 borderline) masses. The highest sensitivity (89%) and specificity (70%) were found for the subjective tumor assessment. Although no malignancy was classified as benign using the SRR criteria (sensitivity = 100%), the specificity of this scoring system was only 37%. At the cut-off risk level of >20%, the ADNEX model had a sensitivity of 78% and a specificity of 70%. Serum levels of CA125, HE4 and the ROMA risk model correctly identified adnexal malignant tumors with a sensitivity of 67%, 25% and 25%, respectively. Corresponding specificities were 72%, 100% and 100%, respectively. The highest positive and negative likelihood ratios were found for SA (LR+ = 3.0 and LR− = 0.16, respectively). Overall diagnostic accuracy of all predictive methods used in this study were similar (range: 70–75%) except for SRR (53%). Conclusion: Subjective assessment remains the best predictive method in complex adnexal masses found at prenatal ultrasound in pregnant women. For less experienced sonographers, both the SRR and ADNEX scoring systems may be also used for the characterization of such tumors, while serum tumor markers CA125 and HE4, along with the ROMA algorithm appear to be less accurate.

Background: Abnormal uterine bleeding (AUB) represents a common diagnostic challenge, as it might be related to both benign and malignant conditions. Endometrial cancer may not be detected with blind uterine cavity sampling by dilatation and curettage or suction devices. Several scoring systems using different ultrasound image characteristics were recently proposed to estimate the risk of endometrial cancer (EC) in women with AUB. Aim: The aim of the present study was to externally validate the predictive value of the recently proposed scoring systems including the Risk of Endometrial Cancer scoring model (REC) for EC risk stratification. Material and methods: It was a retrospective cohort study of women with postmenopausal bleeding. From June 2012 to June 2020 we studied a group of 394 women who underwent standard transvaginal ultrasound examination followed by power Doppler intrauterine vascularity assessment. Selected ultrasound features of endometrial lesions were assessed in each patient. Results: The median age was 60.3 years (range ± 10.7). The median body mass index (BMI) was 30.4 (range ± 6.0). Histological examination revealed 158 cases of endometrial hyperplasia (EH) and 236 cases of EC. Of the studied ultrasound endometrial features, the highest areas under the curve (AUCs) were found for endometrial thickness (ET) (AUC = 0.76; 95% CI: 0.71–0.81) and for interrupted endomyometrial junction (AUC = 0.70, 95% CI: 0.65–0.75). Selected scoring systems presented moderate to good predictive performance in differentiating EC and EH. The highest AUC was found for REC model (AUC = 0.75, 95% CI: 0.70–0.79) and for the basic model that included ET, Doppler score and interrupted endometrial junction (AUC = 0.77, 95% CI: 0.73–0.82). REC model was more accurate than other scoring systems and selected single features for differentiating benign hyperplasia from EC at early stages, regardless of menopausal status. Conclusions: New scoring systems, including the REC model may be used in women with AUB for more efficient differentiation between benign and malignant conditions.

BACKGROUND: Borderline ovarian tumors (BOTs) and early clinical stage malignant adnexal masses can make sonographic diagnosis challenging, while the clinical utility of tumor markers, e.g., CA125 and HE4, or the ROMA algorithm, remains controversial in such cases. OBJECTIVE: To compare the IOTA group Simple Rules Risk (SRR), the ADNEX model and the subjective assessment (SA) with serum CA125, HE4 and the ROMA algorithm in the preoperative discrimination between benign tumors, BOTs and stage I malignant ovarian lesions (MOLs). METHODS: A multicenter retrospective study was conducted with lesions classified prospectively using subjective assessment and tumor markers with the ROMA. The SRR assessment and ADNEX risk estimation were applied retrospectively. The sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative likelihood ratios (LR+ and LR−) were calculated for all tests. RESULTS: In total, 108 patients (the median age: 48 yrs, 44 postmenopausal) with 62 (79.6%) benign masses, 26 (24.1%) BOTs and 20 (18.5%) stage I MOLs were included. When comparing benign masses with combined BOTs and stage I MOLs, SA correctly identified 76% of benign masses, 69% of BOTs and 80% of stage I MOLs. Significant differences were found for the presence and size of the largest solid component (p = 0.0006), the number of papillary projections (p = 0.01), papillation contour (p = 0.008) and IOTA color score (p = 0.0009). The SRR and ADNEX models were characterized by the highest sensitivity (80% and 70%, respectively), whereas the highest specificity was found for SA (94%). The corresponding likelihood ratios were as follows: LR+ = 3.59 and LR− = 0.43 for the ADNEX; LR+ = 6.40 and LR− = 0.63 for SA and LR+ = 1.85 with LR− = 0.35 for the SRR. The sensitivity and specificity of the ROMA test were 50% and 85%, respectively, with LR+ = 3.44 and LR− = 0.58. Of all the tests, the ADNEX model had the highest diagnostic accuracy of 76%. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates the limited value of diagnostics based on CA125 and HE4 serum tumor markers and the ROMA algorithm as independent modalities for the detection of BOTs and early stage adnexal malignant tumors in women. SA and IOTA methods based on ultrasound examination may present superior value over tumor marker assessment.