In 2018, the European Society of Gynecological Oncology (ESGO) jointly with the European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO) and the European Society of Pathology (ESP) published evidence-based guidelines for the management of patients with cervical cancer. Given the large body of new evidence addressing the management of cervical cancer, the three sister societies jointly decided to update these evidence-based guidelines. The update includes new topics to provide comprehensive guidelines on all relevant issues of diagnosis and treatment in cervical cancer. To serve on the expert panel (27 experts across Europe) ESGO/ESTRO/ESP nominated practicing clinicians who are involved in managing patients with cervical cancer and have demonstrated leadership through their expertise in clinical care and research, national and international engagement, profile, and dedication to the topics addressed. To ensure the statements were evidence based, new data identified from a systematic search was reviewed and critically appraised. In the absence of any clear scientific evidence, judgment was based on the professional experience and consensus of the international development group. Before publication, the guidelines were reviewed by 155 independent international practitioners in cancer care delivery and patient representatives. These updated guidelines are comprehensive and cover staging, management, follow-up, long-term survivorship, quality of life and palliative care. Management includes fertility sparing treatment, early and locally advanced cervical cancer, invasive cervical cancer diagnosed on a simple hysterectomy specimen, cervical cancer in pregnancy, rare tumors, recurrent and metastatic diseases. The management algorithms and the principles of radiotherapy and pathological evaluation are also defined.

Objectives To develop a risk prediction model to preoperatively discriminate between benign, borderline, stage I invasive, stage II-IV invasive, and secondary metastatic ovarian tumours. Design Observational diagnostic study using prospectively collected clinical and ultrasound data. Setting 24 ultrasound centres in 10 countries. Participants Women with an ovarian (including para-ovarian and tubal) mass and who underwent a standardised ultrasound examination before surgery. The model was developed on 3506 patients recruited between 1999 and 2007, temporally validated on 2403 patients recruited between 2009 and 2012, and then updated on all 5909 patients. Main outcome measures Histological classification and surgical staging of the mass. Results The Assessment of Different NEoplasias in the adneXa (ADNEX) model contains three clinical and six ultrasound predictors: age, serum CA-125 level, type of centre (oncology centres v other hospitals), maximum diameter of lesion, proportion of solid tissue, more than 10 cyst locules, number of papillary projections, acoustic shadows, and ascites. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) for the classic discrimination between benign and malignant tumours was 0.94 (0.93 to 0.95) on temporal validation. The AUC was 0.85 for benign versus borderline, 0.92 for benign versus stage I cancer, 0.99 for benign versus stage II-IV cancer, and 0.95 for benign versus secondary metastatic. AUCs between malignant subtypes varied between 0.71 and 0.95, with an AUC of 0.75 for borderline versus stage I cancer and 0.82 for stage II-IV versus secondary metastatic. Calibration curves showed that the estimated risks were accurate. Conclusions The ADNEX model discriminates well between benign and malignant tumours and offers fair to excellent discrimination between four types of ovarian malignancy. The use of ADNEX has the potential to improve triage and management decisions and so reduce morbidity and mortality associated with adnexal pathology.

Objectives To prospectively assess the diagnostic performance of simple ultrasound rules to predict benignity/malignancy in an adnexal mass and to test the performance of the risk of malignancy index, two logistic regression models, and subjective assessment of ultrasonic findings by an experienced ultrasound examiner in adnexal masses for which the simple rules yield an inconclusive result. Design Prospective temporal and external validation of simple ultrasound rules to distinguish benign from malignant adnexal masses. The rules comprised five ultrasonic features (including shape, size, solidity, and results of colour Doppler examination) to predict a malignant tumour (M features) and five to predict a benign tumour (B features). If one or more M features were present in the absence of a B feature, the mass was classified as malignant. If one or more B features were present in the absence of an M feature, it was classified as benign. If both M features and B features were present, or if none of the features was present, the simple rules were inconclusive. Setting 19 ultrasound centres in eight countries. Participants 1938 women with an adnexal mass examined with ultrasound by the principal investigator at each centre with a standardised research protocol. Reference standard Histological classification of the excised adnexal mass as benign or malignant. Main outcome measures Diagnostic sensitivity and specificity. Results Of the 1938 patients with an adnexal mass, 1396 (72%) had benign tumours, 373 (19.2%) had primary invasive tumours, 111 (5.7%) had borderline malignant tumours, and 58 (3%) had metastatic tumours in the ovary. The simple rules yielded a conclusive result in 1501 (77%) masses, for which they resulted in a sensitivity of 92% (95% confidence interval 89% to 94%) and a specificity of 96% (94% to 97%). The corresponding sensitivity and specificity of subjective assessment were 91% (88% to 94%) and 96% (94% to 97%). In the 357 masses for which the simple rules yielded an inconclusive result and with available results of CA-125 measurements, the sensitivities were 89% (83% to 93%) for subjective assessment, 50% (42% to 58%) for the risk of malignancy index, 89% (83% to 93%) for logistic regression model 1, and 82% (75% to 87%) for logistic regression model 2; the corresponding specificities were 78% (72% to 83%), 84% (78% to 88%), 44% (38% to 51%), and 48% (42% to 55%). Use of the simple rules as a triage test and subjective assessment for those masses for which the simple rules yielded an inconclusive result gave a sensitivity of 91% (88% to 93%) and a specificity of 93% (91% to 94%), compared with a sensitivity of 90% (88% to 93%) and a specificity of 93% (91% to 94%) when subjective assessment was used in all masses. Conclusions The use of the simple rules has the potential to improve the management of women with adnexal masses. In adnexal masses for which the rules yielded an inconclusive result, subjective assessment of ultrasonic findings by an experienced ultrasound examiner was the most accurate diagnostic test; the risk of malignancy index and the two regression models were not useful.

Accurate methods to preoperatively characterize adnexal tumors are pivotal for optimal patient management. A recent metaanalysis concluded that the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis algorithms such as the Simple Rules are the best approaches to preoperatively classify adnexal masses as benign or malignant. We sought to develop and validate a model to predict the risk of malignancy in adnexal masses using the ultrasound features in the Simple Rules. This was an international cross-sectional cohort study involving 22 oncology centers, referral centers for ultrasonography, and general hospitals. We included consecutive patients with an adnexal tumor who underwent a standardized transvaginal ultrasound examination and were selected for surgery. Data on 5020 patients were recorded in 3 phases from 2002 through 2012. The 5 Simple Rules features indicative of a benign tumor (B-features) and the 5 features indicative of malignancy (M-features) are based on the presence of ascites, tumor morphology, and degree of vascularity at ultrasonography. Gold standard was the histopathologic diagnosis of the adnexal mass (pathologist blinded to ultrasound findings). Logistic regression analysis was used to estimate the risk of malignancy based on the 10 ultrasound features and type of center. The diagnostic performance was evaluated by area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (LR+), negative likelihood ratio (LR-), positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and calibration curves. Data on 4848 patients were analyzed. The malignancy rate was 43% (1402/3263) in oncology centers and 17% (263/1585) in other centers. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve on validation data was very similar in oncology centers (0.917; 95% confidence interval, 0.901-0.931) and other centers (0.916; 95% confidence interval, 0.873-0.945). Risk estimates showed good calibration. In all, 23% of patients in the validation data set had a very low estimated risk (<1%) and 48% had a high estimated risk (≥30%). For the 1% risk cutoff, sensitivity was 99.7%, specificity 33.7%, LR+ 1.5, LR- 0.010, PPV 44.8%, and NPV 98.9%. For the 30% risk cutoff, sensitivity was 89.0%, specificity 84.7%, LR+ 5.8, LR- 0.13, PPV 75.4%, and NPV 93.9%. Quantification of the risk of malignancy based on the Simple Rules has good diagnostic performance both in oncology centers and other centers. A simple classification based on these risk estimates may form the basis of a clinical management system. Patients with a high risk may benefit from surgery by a gynecological oncologist, while patients with a lower risk may be managed locally.

Objectives: To describe the ultrasound characteristics of endometriomas in pre‐ and postmenopausal patients and to develop rules that characterize endometriomas.Methods: All patients included in the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis (IOTA) studies were used in our analysis. Patients with an adnexal mass were scanned by experienced sonologists using a standardized research protocol. The gold standard was the histology of the surgically removed adnexal mass. The gray‐scale and Doppler ultrasound characteristics of the endometriomas were compared with those of other benign and malignant masses. Based on decision‐tree analysis, the existing literature and clinical experience, ultrasound rules for the detection of endometriomas were created and evaluated.Results: Of all 3511 patients included in the IOTA studies, 713 (20%) had endometriomas. Fifty‐one per cent of the endometriomas were unilocular cysts with ground glass echogenicity of the cyst fluid. These characteristics were found less often among other benign tumors or malignancies, or among the small set of endometriomas (4%) that were found in postmenopausal patients. Based on the decision‐tree analysis, the optimal rule to detect endometriomas was ‘an adnexal mass in a premenopausal patient with ground glass echogenicity of the cyst fluid, one to four locules and no papillations with detectable blood flow’. Based on clinical considerations, the following rule: ‘premenopausal status, ground glass echogenicity of the cyst fluid, one to four locules and no solid parts’ seems preferable.Conclusions: Several rules had a good ability to characterize endometriomas. The ultrasound characteristics of endometriomas differ between pre‐ and postmenopausal patients. Masses in postmenopausal women whose cystic contents have a ground glass appearance have a high risk of malignancy. Copyright © 2010 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Learning Objectives: After completing this course, the reader will be able to: Compare the epidemiologic and reproductive risk factors in BOTs with those in ovarian cancers and describe the molecular background of development of BOTs.Use the pathological terminology with either original grouping of borderline category or new subclassification of BOTs and assess the major predictor of recurrence and survival.Determine an appropriate diagnostic algorithm for patients with symptoms suggesting malignant ovarian tumors that will identify borderline ovarian tumors when present.CME This article is available for continuing medical education credit at CME.TheOncologist.comBorderline ovarian tumors represent a heterogeneous group of noninvasive tumors of uncertain malignant potential with characteristic histology. They occur in younger women, are present at an early stage, and have a favorable prognosis, but symptomatic recurrence and death may be found as long as 20 years after therapy in some patients. The molecular changes in borderline ovarian tumors indicate linkage of this disease to type I ovarian tumors (low-grade ovarian carcinomas). The pathological stage of disease and subclassification of extraovarian disease into invasive and noninvasive implants, together with the presence of postoperative macroscopic residual disease, appear to be the major predictor of recurrence and survival. However, it should be emphasized that the most important negative prognostic factor for recurrence is just the use of conservative surgery, but without any impact on patient survival because most recurrent diseases are of the borderline type—easily curable and with an excellent prognosis. Borderline tumors are difficult masses to correctly preoperatively diagnose using imaging methods because their macroscopic features may overlap with invasive and benign ovarian tumors. Over the past several decades, surgical therapy has shifted from a radical approach to more conservative treatment; however, oncologic safety must always be balanced. Follow-up is essential using routine ultrasound imaging, with special attention paid to the remaining ovary in conservatively treated patients. Current literature on this topic leads to a number of controversies that will be discussed thoroughly in this article, with the aim to provide recommendations for the clinical management of these patients.