Current trends in the early diagnosis of ovarian cancer

Cover Page

Cite item

Full Text

Open Access Open Access
Restricted Access Access granted
Restricted Access Subscription or Fee Access

Abstract

Background: Despite the numerous proposed models and diagnostic algorithms, early diagnosis of ovarian cancer remains a significant challenge in modern gynecologic oncology. Solutions to this problem include the improvement of diagnostic equipment, the introduction of novel prognostic models and the use of advanced ultrasound imaging techniques.

Objective: To analyze the results of ultrasound models used in the detection of ovarian cancer in different age groups and in the implementation of screening in various risk groups, in order to create an optimal comprehensive algorithm for the early diagnosis of ovarian cancer at the primary diagnostic stage.

Materials and methods: A total of 50 publications were selected from 186 publications, including meta-analyses, reviews, and articles using PubMed.

Results: The present study investigated and compared the use of modern ultrasound models and ultrasound imaging techniques in the diagnosis of ovarian masses in different age cohorts and risk groups for the development of ovarian cancer.

Conclusion: Despite the use of new modern ultrasound models, the challenge of early diagnosis of ovarian cancer persists and makes it necessary to create a new complex algorithm with the use of additional clinical and ultrasound diagnostic methods.

Full Text

Restricted Access

About the authors

Irina B. Antonova

Russian Scientific Center of Roentgen Radiology, Ministry of Health of Russia

Email: Iran24@yandex.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0003-2668-2110
SPIN-code: 6247-3917

Dr. Med. Sci., Head of the Laboratory of Comprehensive Diagnostics and Treatment of Diseases of the Urogenital and Reproductive Systems in Adults and Children

 

Russian Federation, 117485, Moscow, Profsoyuznaya str., 86

Elena G. Akopyan

MEDSI Group JSC

Author for correspondence.
Email: lenart28@mail.ru
ORCID iD: 0009-0009-2394-6038

ultrasound diagnostics doctor, Department of Ultrasound Diagnostics, Clinical and Diagnostic Center «MEDSI» on Belorusskaya

Russian Federation, 123056, Moscow, Gruzinskiy per., 3A

Zemfira S. Tsallagova

Russian Scientific Center of Roentgen Radiology, Ministry of Health of Russia

Email: e-maizscallagova@rncrr.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0003-3199-0804
SPIN-code: 2242-2327

Dr. Med. Sci., Professor, Scientific Secretary, Russian Scientific Center of Roentgenology and Radiology

Russian Federation, 117485, Moscow, Profsoyuznaya str., 86

Olga I. Aleshikova

Academician V.I. Kulakov National Medical Research Centre for Obstetrics, Gynecology and Perinatology, Ministry of Health of Russia

Email: olga.aleshikova@gmail.com
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-2957-3940

PhD, Senior Researcher at the Institute of Oncogynecology and Mammology

Russian Federation, 117997, Moscow, Ac. Oparin str., 4

Andrey V. Slonov

Clinical Hospital No. 123 of Lopukhin Federal Research and Clinical Centre for Physical and Chemical Medicine of Federal Medical and Biological Agency

Email: dr.slon83@gmail.com
ORCID iD: 0000-0003-4416-7315

PhD, Chief Physician

Russian Federation, 143007, Moscow Region, Odintsovo, Krasnogorskoye Shosse, 15

Levon A. Ashrafyan

Academician V.I. Kulakov National Medical Research Centre for Obstetrics, Gynecology and Perinatology, Ministry of Health of Russia

Email: lenart28@mail.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0001-6396-4948
SPIN-code: 4870-1626

Academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Dr. Med. Sci., Professor, Director of the Institute of Oncogynecology and Mammology

Russian Federation, 117997, Moscow, Ac. Oparina str., 4

References

  1. Arora T., Mullangi S., Vadakekut E.S., Lekkala M.R. Epithelial ovarian cancer. 2024. In: StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2025.
  2. World Ovarian Cancer Coalition. Ovarian cancer data briefing. 2024. Available at: https://worldovariancancercoalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/ 2024-Global-Priority.pdf
  3. Menon U., Gentry-Maharaj A., Burnell M., Singh N., Ryan A., Karpinskyj C. et al. Ovarian cancer population screening and mortality after long-term follow-up in the UK Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening (UKCTOCS): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2021; 397(10290): 2182-93. https:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(21)00731-5.
  4. Каприн А.Д., Старинский В.В., Шахзадова А.О., ред. Состояние онкологической помощи населению России в 2022 году. М.: МНИОИ им. П.А. Герцена - филиал ФГБУ «НМИЦ радиологии» Минздрава России; 2022. 239с. [Kaprin A.D., Starinsky V.V., Shakhzadova A.O., eds. State of oncological care for the population of Russia in 2022. Moscow: P.A. Herzen MRОI - branch of the NMRC of Radiology of the Ministry of Health of Russia; 2022. 239p. (in Russian)].
  5. IOTA. Simple rules and SRrisk calculator to diagnose ovarian cancer. Available at: https://www.iotagroup.org/research/iota-models-software/iota-simple-rules-and-srrisk-calculator-diagnose-ovarian-cancer (Accessed on 27 October 2022).
  6. Meys E.M., Kaijser J., Kruitwagen R.F., Slangen B.F., Van Calster B., Aertgeerts B. et al. Subjective assessment versus ultrasound models to diagnose ovarian cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur. J. Cancer. 2016; 58: 17-29. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2016.01.007.
  7. Czekierdowski A., Stachowicz N., Smolen A., Łoziński T., Guzik P., Kluz T. Performance of IOTA simple rules risks, ADNEX model, subjective assessment compared to CA125 and HE4 with ROMA algorithm in discriminating between benign, borderline and stage I malignant adnexal lesions. Diagnostics (Basel). 2023; 13(5): 885. https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics13050885.
  8. Fischerova D., Cibula D. Ultrasound in gynecological cancer: is it time for re-evaluation of its uses? Curr. Oncol. Rep. 2015; 17(6): 28. https:// dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11912-015-0449-x.
  9. Levine D., Patel M.D., Suh-Burgmann E.J., Andreotti R.F., Benacerraf B.R., Benson C.B. et al. Simple adnexal cysts: SRU consensus conference update on follow-up and reporting. Radiology. 2019; 293(2): 359-71. https:// dx.doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2019191354.
  10. Timmerman D., Valentin L., Bourne T.H., Collins W.P., Verrelst H., Vergote I.; International Ovarian Tumor Analysis (IOTA) Group. Terms, definitions and measurements to describe the sonographic features of adnexal tumors: a consensus opinion from the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis (IOTA) Group. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 2000; 16(5): 500-5. https:// dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1469-0705.2000.00287.x.
  11. Гатауллин И.Г., Савинова А.Р. Анализ прогностических и предиктивных моделей по раку яичников. Поволжский онкологический вестник. 2021; 12(3). Доступно по: https://oncovestnik.ru/archive/2021/2021-3/analiz-prognosticheskih-i-prediktivnyh-modelej-po-raku-yaichnikov/ [Gataullin I.G., Savinova A.R. Analysis of prognostic and predictive models for ovarian cancer. Oncology Bulletin of the Volga Region. 2021; 12(3). (in Russian)]. Available at: https://oncovestnik.ru/archive/2021/2021-3/ analiz-prognosticheskih-i-prediktivnyh-modelej-po-raku-yaichnikov/
  12. Jacobs I., Oram D., Fairbanks J., Turner J., Frost C., Grudzinskas J.G. A risk of malignancy index incorporating CA 125, ultrasound and menopausal status for the accurate preoperative diagnosis of ovarian cancer. Br. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. 1990; 97(10): 922-9. https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0528.1990.tb02448.x.
  13. Davenport C.F., Rai N., Sharma P., Deeks J., Berhane S., Mallett S. et al. Diagnostic models combining clinical information, ultrasound and biochemical markers for ovarian cancer: Cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis. Cancers (Basel). 2022; 14(15): 3621. https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ cancers14153621.
  14. Huwidi A., Abobrege A., Assidi M., Buhmeida A., Ermiah E. Diagnostic value of risk of malignancy index in the clinical evaluation of ovarian mass. Mol. Clin. Oncol. 2022; 17(1): 118. https://dx.doi.org/10.3892/mco.2022.2551.
  15. Ашрафян Л.А., Бабаева Н.А., Антонова И.Б., Ивашина С.В., Люстик А.В., Алешикова O.И., Герфанова Е.В., Добренко А.А. Ультразвуковые критерии ранней диагностики рака яичников. Опухоли женской репродуктивной системы. 2015; 11(1): 53-60. [Ashrafyan L.A., Babaeva N.A., Antonova I.B., Ivashina S.V., Lyustik A.V., Aleshikova O.I., Gerfanova E.V., Dobrenko А.А. Ultrasound criteria of early diagnostics of ovarian carcinoma. Tumors of Female Reproductive System. 2015; 11(1): 53-60. (in Russian)]. https:// dx.doi.org/10.17650/1994-4098-2015-1-53-60.
  16. Timmerman D., Testa A.C., Bourne T., Ameye L., Jurkovic D., Van Holsbeke C. et al. Simple ultrasound-based rules for the diagnosis of ovarian cancer. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 2008; 31(6): 681-90. https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ uog.5365.
  17. Divya K.P., Prabhu S., Satish Prasad B.S. Validity of international ovarian tumour analysis simple rules in characterization of ovarian mass. Int. J. Reprod. Contracept. Obstet. Gynecol. 2023; 12(7): 2128-32. https:// dx.doi.org/10.18203/2320-1770.ijrcog20231922.
  18. Timmerman D., Van Calster B., Testa A., Savelli L., Fischerova D., Froyman W. et al. Predicting the risk of malignancy in adnexal masses based on the Simple Rules from the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis group. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 2016; 214(4): 424-37. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2016.01.007.
  19. Moore R.G., Brown A.K., Miller M.C., Skates S., Allard W.J., Verch T. et al. The use of multiple novel tumour biomarkers for the detection of ovarian carcinoma in patients with a pelvic mass. Gynecol. Oncol. 2008; 108(2): 402-8. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2007.10.017.
  20. Suri A., Perumal V., Ammalli P., Suryan V., Bansal S.K. Diagnostic measures comparison for ovarian malignancy risk in epithelial ovarian cancer patients: a meta-analysis. Sci. Rep. 2021; 11(1): 17308. https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/ s41598-021-96552-9.
  21. Bryce C. Risk of Ovarian Malignancy Algorithm (ROMA) for assessing likelihood of ovarian cancer. Am. Fam. Physician. 2023; 107(3): 303-4.
  22. Wang H., Liu P., Xu H., Dai H. Early diagonosis of ovarian cancer: serum HE4, CA125 and ROMA model. Am. J. Transl. Res. 2021; 13(12): 14141-8.
  23. Yang S., Tang J., Rong Y., Wang M., Long J., Chen C. Performance of the IOTA ADNEX model combined with HE4 for identifying early-stage ovarian cancer. Front. Oncol. 2022; 12: 949766. https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/ fonc.2022.949766.
  24. Huang X., Wang Z., Zhang M., Luo H. Diagnostic accuracy of the ADNEX model for ovarian cancer at the 15% cut-off value: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Front. Oncol. 2021; 11: 684257. https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2021.684257.
  25. Cherukuri S., Jajoo S., Dewani D. The International Ovarian Tumor Analysis-Assessment of Different Neoplasias in the Adnexa (IOTA-ADNEX) Model Assessment for risk of ovarian malignancy in adnexal masses. Cureus. 2022; 14(11): e31194. https://dx.doi.org/10.7759/cureus.31194.
  26. Timmerman D., Van Calster B., Testa A.C., Guerriero S., Fischerova D., Lissoni A.A. et al. Ovarian cancer prediction in adnexal masses using ultrasound-based logistic regression models: a temporal and external validation study by the IOTA group. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 2010; 36(2): 226-34. https:// dx.doi.org/10.1002/uog.7636.
  27. Nunes N., Ambler G., Foo X., Widschwendter M., Jurkovic D. Prospective evaluation of IOTA logistic regression models LR1 and LR2 in comparison with subjective pattern recognition for diagnosis of ovarian cancer in an outpatient setting. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 2018; 51(6): 829-35. https:// dx.doi.org/10.1002/uog.18918.
  28. Amor F., Alcázar J.L., Vaccaro H., León M., Iturra A. GI-RADS reporting system for ultrasound evaluation of adnexal masses in clinical practice: a prospective multicenter study. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 2011; 38(4): 450-5. https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/uog.9012.
  29. Alcázar J.L., Rodriguez-Guzman L., Vara J., Amor F., Diaz L., Vaccaro H. Gynecologic imaging and reporting data system for classifying adnexal masses. Minerva Obstet. Gynecol. 2023; 75: 69-79. https://dx.doi.org/10.23736/ S2724-606X.22.05122-3.
  30. Timmerman D., Testa A.C., Bourne T., Ferrazzi E., Ameye L., Konstantinovic M.L.; International Ovarian Tumor Analysis Group. Logistic regression model to distinguish between the benign and malignant adnexal mass before surgery: a multicenter study by the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis Group. J. Clin. Oncol. 2005; 23(34): 8794-801. https://dx.doi.org/10.1200/ JCO.2005.01.7632.
  31. Vara J., Manzour N., Chacón E., López-Picazo A., Linares M., Pascual M.Á. Ovarian Adnexal Reporting Data System (O-RADS) for classifying adnexal masses: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Cancers (Basel). 2022; 14(13): 3151. https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/cancers14133151.
  32. Li Y., Shao G., Wu M., Zhang F., Zhang Y., Shao C. Evaluation of American College of Radiology Ovarian-Adnexal Reporting and Data System ultrasound to predict malignancy risk in adnexal lesions. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. Res. 2024; 50(2): 225-32. https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jog.15831.
  33. Vilendecic Z., Radojevic M., Stefanovic K., Dotlic J., Likic Ladjevic I., Dugalic S. Accuracy of IOTA simple rules, IOTA ADNEX model, RMI, and subjective assessment for preoperative adnexal mass evaluation: the experience of a tertiary care referral hospital. Gynecol. Obstet. Invest. 2023; 88(2): 116-22. https://dx.doi.org/10.1159/000529355.
  34. Salvador S., Scott S., Glanc P., Eiriksson L., Jang J.H., Sebastianelli A. et al. Guideline No. 403: initial investigation and management of adnexal masses. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. Can. 2020; 42(8): 1021.e1-1029.e3. https:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jogc.2019.08.044.
  35. Van Calster B., Valentin L., Froyman W., Landolfo C., Ceusters J., Testa A.C. et al. Validation of models to diagnose ovarian cancer in patients managed surgically or conservatively: multicentre cohort study. BMJ. 2020; 370: m2614. https://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.m2614.
  36. Carreras-Dieguez N., Glickman A., Munmany M., Casanovas G., Agustí N., Díaz-Feijoo B. et al. Comparison of HE4, CA125, ROMA and CPH-I for preoperative assessment of adnexal tumors. Diagnostics (Basel). 2022; 12(1): 226. https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics12010226.
  37. Filiz A.A., Kahyaoglu S., Atalay C.R. Comparison of International Ovarian Tumor Analysis ADNEX model and Ovarian-Adnexal Reporting and Data System with final histological diagnosis in adnexal masses: a retrospective study. Obstet. Gynecol. Sci. 2024; 67(1): 86-93. https://dx.doi.org/10.5468/ ogs.23061.
  38. Jacobs I.J., Menon U., Ryan A., Gentry-Maharaj A., Burnell M., Kalsi J.K. et al. Ovarian cancer screening and mortality in the UK Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening (UKCTOCS): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2016; 387(10022): 945-56. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ S0140-6736(15)01224-6.
  39. Han C.Y., Lu K.H., Corrigan G., Perez A., Kohring S.D., Celestino J. et al. Normal risk ovarian screening study: 21-year update. J. Clin. Oncol. 2024; 42(10): 1102-9. https://dx.doi.org/10.1200/JCO.23.00141.
  40. Pavlik Е.J., van Nagell J.R. Jr., Dietrich C.S. 3rd, Ueland F.R. Compelling story of ovarian cancer screening. J. Clin. Oncol. 2024; 42(10): 1091-4. https://dx.doi.org/10.1200/JCO.23.02424.
  41. Moro F., Esposito R., Landolfo C., Froyman W., Timmerman D., Bourne T. et al. Ultrasound evaluation of ovarian masses and assessment of the extension of ovarian malignancy. Br. J. Radiol. 2021; 94(1125): 20201375. https:// dx.doi.org/10.1259/bjr.20201375.
  42. Luis Alcázar J., Ramón Pérez-Vidal J., Tameish S., Chacón E., Manzour N., Ángel Mínguez J. Ultrasound for assessing tumor spread in ovarian cancer. A systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis. Eur. J. Obstet. Gynecol. Reprod. Biol. 2024; 292: 194-200. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.ejogrb.2023.11.017.
  43. Gorski J.W., Dietrich C.S. 3rd, Davis C., Erol L., Dietrich H., Per N.J. et al. Significance of pelvic fluid observed during ovarian cancer screening with transvaginal sonogram. Diagnostics (Basel). 2022; 12(1): 144. https:// dx.doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics12010144.
  44. Guerriero S., Alcazar J.L., Pascual M.A., Ajossa S., Olartecoechea B., Hereter L. Preoperative diagnosis of metastatic ovarian cancer is related to origin of primary tumor. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 2012; 39(5): 581-6. https:// dx.doi.org/10.1002/uog.10120.
  45. Xun L., Zhai L., Xu H. Comparison of conventional, doppler and contrast-enhanced ultrasonography in differential diagnosis of ovarian masses: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ Open. 2021; 11(12): e052830. https://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2021-052830.
  46. Sehgal N. Efficacy of color doppler ultrasonography in differentiation of ovarian masses. J. Midlife Health. 2019; 10(1): 22-8. https://dx.doi.org/10.4103/ jmh.JMH_23_18.
  47. Mahale N., Kumar N., Mahale A., Ullal S., Fernandes M., Prabhu S. Validity of ultrasound with color Doppler to differentiate between benign and malignant ovarian tumours. Obstet. Gynecol. Sci. 2024; 67(2): 227-34. https:// dx.doi.org/10.5468/ogs.23072.
  48. Harb H., Husseiny A., Salama M., Elshawarby H. Pre-operative evaluation of color doppler ultrasonography to predict malignancy in ovarian masses at Ain-Shams University. QJM. 2023; 116(Supplement_1): hcad069.549. https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/qjmed/hcad069.549.
  49. Sánchez E., Verdú A., Carbonell A., Alcazar J.L. The role of three-dimensional power doppler for detecting ovarian cancer in adnexal masses: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Oncol. Adv. 2024; 2(1): 18-28. https:// dx.doi.org/10.14218/OnA.2023.00034.
  50. Liu Y., Zhang Q., Zhang F., Liu M., Zhang J., Cao X. Is three-dimensional ultrasonography a valuable diagnostic tool for patients with ovarian cancer? Systematic review and meta-analysis. Front. Oncol. 2024; 14: 1404426. https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2024.1404426.

Supplementary files

Supplementary Files
Action
1. JATS XML
Download

Copyright (c) 2025 Bionika Media