Objective: Oophorectomy is a common procedure for benign uterine conditions, historically recommended for women aged 40–45 and older due to the belief that ovarian preservation had no significant benefits. This review evaluates the literature on the optimal age for oophorectomy in women with benign conditions to assess its risks and benefits and guide clinical decision-making. Methods: A narrative review was conducted using a literature search of articles published between January 2000 and February 2025, focusing on the age-related outcomes of ovarian conservation versus removal. Results: Oophorectomy remains a complex decision in gynecological surgeries, especially among perimenopausal and postmenopausal women. Evidence supports ovarian conservation in average-risk women, highlighting reduced risks of cardiovascular disease, osteoporosis, and all-cause mortality. Conversely, oophorectomy is favored in high-risk populations, such as BRCA mutation carriers, due to significantly lower risks of ovarian and breast cancers. Despite declining rates, unnecessary oophorectomies persist, influenced by age, socioeconomic status, comorbidities, and surgical approaches. The development of a risk stratification tool offers promise for improving individualized decision-making. Conclusions: The decision to perform oophorectomy for benign conditions should be personalized, balancing patient-specific factors to optimize outcomes and long-term health benefits.

Background: Preoperative breast MRI is widely used in surgical planning because of its high sensitivity. However, discrepancies with histopathology remain common and can affect tumor size assessment and treatment decisions. In addition, recent comparative studies have highlighted the growing role of contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) and multiparametric MRI (mpMRI), both of which may improve specificity and accessibility compared to conventional MRI. Methods: A structured literature review was conducted in PubMed (2000–2025) according to PRISMA guidelines. Studies included if they evaluated preoperative breast MRI with histopathological correlation and reported sensitivity, specificity, or concordance outcomes. Data extraction focused on study design, patient and tumor characteristics, imaging methods, and clinical impact. Results: MRI demonstrates high sensitivity, particularly in detecting IDC and ILC. However, overestimation of tumor size remains a concern, particularly in ILC and high-grade DCIS, while underestimation is frequently observed after neoadjuvant therapy, especially in Luminal A tumors. Tumor size and stage significantly affect concordance, with advanced-stage tumors (T2–T3) showing better MRI-histopathology concordance than early-stage lesions (T0–T1). Specificity remains limited, particularly in DCIS and multifocal disease. Emerging evidence suggests that contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) achieves comparable sensitivity with higher specificity, while multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) incorporating diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) improves lesion characterization and prediction of treatment response. Conclusions: While MRI remains a valuable diagnostic tool for breast cancer, histopathological validation is essential to guide treatment decisions. Future research should focus on AI-enhanced imaging techniques, CEM and multiparametric MRI to improve concordance rates, reduce overdiagnosis and translate imaging advances into meaningful clinical outcomes.