In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we aimed to assess the pooled diagnostic performance of the so-called Ovarian Adnexal Report Data System (O-RADS) for classifying adnexal masses using transvaginal ultrasound, a classification system that was introduced in 2020. We performed a search for studies reporting the use of the O-RADS system for classifying adnexal masses from January 2020 to April 2022 in several databases (Medline (PubMed), Google Scholar, Scopus, Cochrane, and Web of Science). We selected prospective and retrospective cohort studies using the O-RADS system for classifying adnexal masses with histologic diagnosis or conservative management demonstrating spontaneous resolution or persistence in cases of benign appearing masses after follow-up scan as the reference standard. We excluded studies not related to the topic under review, studies not addressing O-RADS classification, studies addressing MRI O-RADS classification, letters to the editor, commentaries, narrative reviews, consensus documents, and studies where data were not available for constructing a 2 × 2 table. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative likelihood ratios, and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) were calculated. The quality of the studies was evaluated using QUADAS-2. A total of 502 citations were identified. Ultimately, 11 studies comprising 4634 masses were included. The mean prevalence of ovarian malignancy was 32%. The risk of bias was high in eight studies for the “patient selection” domain. The risk of bias was low for the “index test” and “reference test” domains for all studies. Overall, the pooled estimated sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio, and DOR of the O-RADS system for classifying adnexal masses were 97% (95% confidence interval (CI) = 94%–98%), 77% (95% CI = 68%–84%), 4.2 (95% CI = 2.9–6.0), 0.04 (95% CI = 0.03–0.07), and 96 (95% CI = 50–185), respectively. Heterogeneity was moderate for sensitivity and high for specificity. In conclusion, the O-RADS system has good sensitivity and moderate specificity for classifying adnexal masses.

Objective Management of endometrial cancer is advancing, with accurate staging crucial for guiding treatment decisions. Understanding sentinel lymph node (SLN) involvement rates across molecular subgroups is essential. To evaluate SLN involvement in early-stage (International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics 2009 I–II) endometrial cancer, considering molecular subtypes and new European Society of Gynaecological Oncology (ESGO) risk classification. Methods The SENECA study retrospectively reviewed data from 2139 women with stage I–II endometrial cancer across 66 centers in 16 countries. Patients underwent surgery with SLN assessment following ESGO guidelines between January 2021 and December 2022. Molecular analysis was performed on pre-operative biopsies or hysterectomy specimens. Results Among the 2139 patients, the molecular subgroups were as follows: 272 (12.7%) p53 abnormal (p53abn, 1191 (55.7%) non-specific molecular profile (NSMP), 581 (27.2%) mismatch repair deficient (MMRd), 95 (4.4%) POLE mutated (POLE-mut). Tracer diffusion was detected in, at least one side, in 97.2% of the cases; with a bilateral diffusion observed in 82.7% of the cases. By ultrastaging (90.7% of the cases) or one-step nucleic acid amplification (198 (9.3%) of the cases), 205 patients were identified with affected sentinel lymph nodes, representing 9.6% of the sample. Of these, 139 (67.8%) had low-volume metastases (including micrometastases, 42.9%; and isolated tumor cells, 24.9%) while 66 (32.2%) had macrometastases. Significant differences in SLN involvement were observed between molecular subtypes, with p53abn and MMRd groups having the highest rates (12.50% and 12.40%, respectively) compared with NSMP (7.80%) and POLE-mut (6.30%), (p=0.004); (p53abn, OR=1.69 (95% CI 1.11 to 2.56), p=0.014; MMRd, OR=1.67 (95% CI 1.21 to 2.31), p=0.002). Differences were also noted among ESGO risk groups (2.84% for low-risk patients, 6.62% for intermediate-risk patients, 21.63% for high–intermediate risk patients, and 22.51% for high-risk patients; p<0.001). Conclusions Our study reveals significant differences in SLN involvement among patients with early-stage endometrial cancer based on molecular subtypes. This underscores the importance of considering molecular characteristics for accurate staging and optimal management decisions.

Objective The purpose of this study was to establish a consensus on the surgical technique for sentinel lymph node (SLN) dissection in cervical cancer. Methods A 26 question survey was emailed to international expert gynecological oncology surgeons. A two-step modified Delphi method was used to establish consensus. After a first round of online survey, the questions were amended and a second round, along with semistructured interviews was performed. Consensus was defined using a 70% cut-off for agreement. Results Twenty-five of 38 (65.8%) experts responded to the first and second rounds of the online survey. Agreement ≥70% was reached for 13 (50.0%) questions in the first round and for 15 (57.7%) in the final round. Consensus agreement identified 15 recommended, three optional, and five not recommended steps. Experts agreed on the following recommended procedures: use of indocyanine green as a tracer; superficial (with or without deep) injection at 3 and 9 o’clock; injection at the margins of uninvolved mucosa avoiding vaginal fornices; grasping the cervix with forceps only in part of the cervix is free of tumor; use of a minimally invasive approach for SLN biopsy in the case of simple trachelectomy/conization; identification of the ureter, obliterated umbilical artery, and external iliac vessels before SLN excision; commencing the dissection at the level of the uterine artery and continuing laterally; and completing dissection in one hemi-pelvis before proceeding to the contralateral side. Consensus was also reached in recommending against injection at 6 and 12 o’clock, and injection directly into the tumor in cases of the tumor completely replacing the cervix; against removal of nodes through port without protective maneuvers; absence of an ultrastaging protocol; and against modifying tracer concentration at the time of re-injection after mapping failure. Conclusion Recommended, optional, and not recommended steps of SLN dissection in cervical cancer have been identified based on consensus among international experts. These represent a surgical guide that may be used by surgeons in clinical trials and for quality assurance in routine practice.

Objective: Based on the SUCCOR study database, our primary objective was to identify the independent clinical pathological variables associated with the risk of relapse in patients with stage IB1 cervical cancer who underwent a radical hysterectomy. Our secondary goal was to design and validate a risk predictive index (RPI) for classifying patients depending on the risk of recurrence. Methods: Overall, 1116 women were included from January 2013 to December 2014. We randomly divided our sample into two cohorts: discovery and validation cohorts. The test group was used to identify the independent variables associated with relapse, and with these variables, we designed our RPI. The index was applied to calculate a relapse risk score for each participant in the validation group. Results: A previous cone biopsy was the most significant independent variable that lowered the rate of relapse (odds ratio [OR] 0.31, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.17–0.60). Additionally, patients with a tumor diameter >2 cm on preoperative imaging assessment (OR 2.15, 95% CI 1.33–3.5) and operated by the minimally invasive approach (OR 1.61, 95% CI 1.00–2.57) were more likely to have a recurrence. Based on these findings, patients in the validation cohort were classified according to the RPI of low, medium, or high risk of relapse, with rates of 3.4%, 9.8%, and 21.3% observed in each group, respectively. With a median follow-up of 58 months, the 5-year disease-free survival rates were 97.2% for the low-risk group, 88.0% for the medium-risk group, and 80.5% for the high-risk group (p < 0.001). Conclusion: Previous conization to radical hysterectomy was the most powerful protective variable of relapse. Our risk predictor index was validated to identify patients at risk of recurrence.