Медицинская литература. Новинки

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ультразвуковая диагностика серозных опухолей яичников: возможности, сложности, перспективы (обзор литературы)

Вы можете загрузить полный текст статьи в формате pdf

Несмотря на то что многочисленные попытки исследователей решить проблему скрининга рака яичников с помощью трансвагинальной эхографии не увенчались успехом, тем не менее ее использование в диагностике опухоли яичников вполне обоснованно и целесообразно. Проанализированы современные отечественные и зарубежные данные, касающиеся вопросов дифференциальной диагностики между серозной пограничной опухолью и low grade серозной карциномой яичников. Ультразвуковое исследование является наиболее часто используемым диагностическим тестом для диагностики опухолей яичников. Ультразвуковое исследование с использованием современных ультразвуковых технологий, проведенное опытным специалистом, позволяет избежать ненужных или неэффективных операций. Результаты визуализации, характерные для пограничных серозных новообразований и опухолей низкой степени злокачественности, важны для своевременной правильной дифференциальной диагностики, результатом которой является выбор адекватного объема хирургического лечения этой категории пациенток. Улучшение диагностической визуализации рака яичников открывает перспективы для повышения эффективности лечения и вместе с тем изучения возможностей ранней диагностики серозных пограничных опухолей яичников и серозных карцином низкой степени злокачественности.

Ключевые слова:
рак яичников, пограничные опухоли яичников, ультразвуковая диагностика, серозные опухоли яичников, ovarian cancer, borderline ovarian tumors, ultrasound, serous ovarian tumors

Литература:
1.Longacre T.A., Wells M., Kurman M.L. et al. Serous tumors. In: WHO Classification of Tumours of Female Reproductive Organs. IARC Press: Lyon, France, 2014: 15–24.
2.Folsom S.M., Berger J., Soong T.R., Rangaswamy B. Comprehensive Review of Serous Tumors of Tubo-Ovarian Origin: Clinical Behavior, Pathological Correlation, Current Molecular Updates, and Imaging Manifestations. Curr. Probl. Diagn. Radiol. 2023; 52 (5): 425–438. http://doi.org/10.1067/j.cpradiol.2023.05.010
3.Matsuo K., Machida H., Grubbs B.H. et al. Diagnosis-shift between low-grade serous ovarian cancer and serous borderline ovarian tumor: A population-based study. Gynecol. Oncol. 2020; 157 (1): 21–28. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2019.08.030
4.Xiao F., Zhang L., Yang S. et al. Quantitative analysis of the MRI features in the differentiation of benign, borderline, and malignant epithelial ovarian tumors. J. Ovarian Res. 2022; 15 (1): 13. http://doi.org/10.1186/s13048-021-00920-y
5.Nougaret S., Lakhman Y., Molinari N. et al. CT Features of Ovarian Tumors: Defining Key Differences Between Serous Borderline Tumors and Low-Grade Serous Carcinomas. Am. J. Roentgenol. 2018; 210 (4): 918–926. http://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.17.18254
6.Du Bois A., Trillsch F., Mahner S. et al. Management of borderline ovarian tumors. Ann. Oncol. 2016; 27 (Suppl. 1): i20–i22.
7.Kurman R.J., Сarcanqiu M.L., Herrington C.S., Young R.H. WHO Classification of Tumours of Female Reproductive Organs. 4th ed. Lyon: IARS, 2014.
8.WHO Classification of Tumours: 2020. Female genital Tumours. 5th ed. Lyon.
9.Vang R., Hannibal C.G., Junge J. et al. Long-term Behavior of Serous Borderline Tumors Subdivided Into Atypical Proliferative Tumors and Noninvasive Low-grade Carcinomas: A Population-based Clinicopathologic Study of 942 Cases. Am. J. Surg. Pathol. 2017; 41 (6): 725–737. http://doi.org/10.1097/PAS.0000000000000824
10.Bell K.A., Smith Sehdev A.E., Kurman R.J. Refined diagnostic criteria for implants associated with ovarian atypical proliferative serous tumors (borderline) and micropapillary serous carcinomas. Am. J. Surg. Pathol. 2001; 25 (4): 419–432. http://doi.org/10.1097/00000478-200104000-00001
11.May T., Virtanen C., Sharma M. et al. Low malignant potential tumors with micropapillary featuresare molecularly similar to low-grade serous carcinoma of the ovary. Gynecol. Oncol. 2010; 117 (1): 9–17. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2010.01.006
12.Amante S., Santos F., Cunha T.M. Low-grade serous epithelial ovarian cancer: a comprehensive review and update for radiologists. Insights. Imaging. 2021; 12: 60. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13244-021-01004-7
13.Lalwani N., Shanbhogue A.K., Vikram R. Current update on borderline ovarian neoplasms. Am. J. Roentgenol. 2010; 194 (2): 330–336. http://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.09.3936
14.Ayhan A., Akarin R., Develioglu O. et al. Borderline epithelial ovarian tumors. Aust. N. Z. J. Obstet Gynecol. 1991; 31 (2): 174–176. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1479-828x.1991.tb01812.x
15.Seidman J.D., Horkayne-Szakaly I., Haiba M. The histologic type and stage distribution of ovarian carcinomas of surface epithelial origin. Int. J. Gynecol. Pathol. 2004; 23: 41–44. http://doi.org/10.1097/01.pgp.0000101080.35393.16
16.Moro F., Baima Poma C., Zannoni G.F., Testa A.C. Imaging in gynecological disease (12): clinical and ultrasound features of invasive and non-invasive malignant serous ovarian tumors. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 2017; 50 (6): 788–799. http://doi.org/10.1002/uog.17414
17.Давыдова И.Ю., Чекалова М.А., Карселадзе А.И. и др. Серозные пограничные опухоли яичников: современные возможности ультразвуковой диагностики в мониторинге течения болезни после органосохраняющих операций. Современная онкология. 2021; 23 (1): 106–111. http://doi.org/10.26442/18151434.2021.1.20057
18.Чекалова М.А., Давыдова И.Ю., Карселадзе А.И., Мещерякова Л.А., Кузнецов В.Н., Черкасов Е.Ю. Серозные пограничные опухоли яичников: особенности ультразвукового изображения. Опухоли женской репродуктивной системы. 2020; 16 (2): 55–62. https://doi.org/10.17650/1994-4098-2020-16-2-55-61
19.Di Legge A., Pollastri P., Mancari R. et al. Clinical and ultrasound characteristics of surgically removed adnexal lesions with largest diameter ? 2.5 cm: a pictorial essay. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 2017; 50 (5): 648–656. http://doi.org/10.1002/uog.17392
20.Exacoustos C., Romanini M.E., Rinaldo D. et al. Preoperative sonographic features of borderline ovarian tumors. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 2005; 25 (1): 50–59. http://doi.org/10.1002/uog.1823
21.Van Calster B., Van Hoorde K., Valentin L. et al.; International Ovarian Tumour Analysis Group. Evaluating the risk of ovarian cancer before surgery using the ADNEX model to differentiate between benign, borderline, early and advanced stage invasive, and secondary metastatic tumours: prospective multicentre diagnostic study. BMJ. 2014; 349:g5920. http://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.g5920
22.Di Legge A., Testa A.C., Ameye L. et al. Lesion size affects diagnostic performance of IOTA logistic regression models, IOTA simple rules and risk of malignancy index in discriminating between benign and malignant adnexal masses. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 2012; 40: 345–354. http://doi.org/10.1002/uog.11167
23.Ferrazzi E., Lissoni A.A., Dordoni D. et al. Differentiation of small adnexal masses based on morphologic characteristics of transvaginal sonographic imaging: a multicenter study. J. Ultrasound Med. 2005; 24: 1467–1473. http://doi.org/10.7863/jum.2005.24.11.1467
24.Hu R., Xiang H., Mu Y. et al. Combination of 2- and 3-dimensional contrast-enhanced transvaginal sonography for diagnosis of small adnexal masses. J. Ultrasound Med. 2014; 33: 1889–1899. http://doi.org/10.7863/ultra.33.11.1889
25.Timmerman D., Testa A.C, Bourne T. et al. 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: 8794–8801. http://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2005.01.7632
26.Valentin L., Ameye L., Testa A. et al. Ultrasound characteristics of different types of adnexal malignancies. Gynecol. Oncol. 2006; 102: 41–48. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2005.11.015
27.Goldstein S.R., Timor-Tritsch I.E., Monteagudo A. et al. Cystadenofibromas: Can transvaginal ultrasound appearance reduce some surgical interventions? J. Clin. Ultrasound. 2015; 43: 393–396. http://doi.org/10.1002/jcu.22241
28.Kurman R.J., Carcangiu M.L., Herrington C.S., Young R.H. (eds). WHO classification of tumours of female reproductive organs (4th edn). International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC): Lyon, 2014.
29.Hillaby K., Aslam N., Salim R. et al. The value of detection of normal ovarian tissue (the ‘ovarian crescent sign’) in the differential diagnosis of adnexal masses. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 2004; 23: 63–67. http://doi.org/10.1002/uog.946
30.Van Holsbeke C., Van Belle V., Leone F.D. et al. Prospective external validation of the ‘ovarian crescent sign’ as a single ultrasound parameter to distinguish between benign and malignant adnexal pathology. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 2010; 36: 81–87. http://doi.org/10.1002/uog.7625
31.Чекалова М.А. Ультразвуковая диагностика в онкогинекологии. Онкогинекология: Национальное руководство / Под ред. Каприна А.Д. М.: ГЭОТАР-медиа, 2019: 51–76.
32.Shepherd J.H. Revised FIGO staging for gynaecological cancer. Br. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. 1989; 96: 889–892. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0528.1989.tb03341.x
33.Fruscella E., Testa A.C., Ferrandina G. et al. Ultrasound features of different histopathological subtypes of borderline ovarian tumors. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 2005; 26: 644–650. http://doi.org/10.1002/uog.2607
34.Fagotti A., Ludovisi M., De Blasis I. et al. The sonographic prediction of invasive carcinoma in unilocular-solid ovarian cysts in premenopausal patients: a pilot study. Hum. Reprod. 2012; 27 (9):2676–2683. http://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/des231
35.Bruno M., Capanna G., Stanislao V. et al. Ultrasound Features and Clinical Outcome of Patients with Ovarian Masses Diagnosed during Pregnancy: Experience of Single Gynecological Ultrasound Center. Diagnostics (Basel). 2023; 13 (20): 3247. http://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics13203247
36.Gadducci A., Cosio S. Therapeutic Approach to Low-Grade Serous Ovarian Carcinoma: State of Art and Perspectives of Clinical Research. Cancers (Basel). 2020; 12 (5): 1336. http://doi.org/10.3390/cancers12051336
37.Fischerova D., Smet C., Scovazzi U. et al. Staging by imaging in gynecologic cancer and the role of ultrasound: an update of European joint consensus statements. Int. J. Gynecol. Cancer. 2024; 34 (3): 363–378. http://doi.org/10.1136/ijgc-2023-004609
38.Borges A.L., Brito M., Ambrosio P. et al. Prospective external validation of IOTA methods for classifying adnexal masses and retrospective assessment of two-step strategy using benign descriptors and ADNEX: a Portuguese multicenter study. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 2024; 64 (4): 538–549. http://doi.org/10.1002/uog.27641

Ultrasound of serous ovarian tumors: possibilities, difficulties, prospects (review article)

In spite of numerous unsuccessful attempts by researchers to solve the problems of ovarian cancer screening with transvaginal ultrasound, its use in the ovarian cancer diagnosis is quite reasonable and appropriate. Modern domestic and foreign data on the issues of serous borderline tumors and low-grade serous ovarian carcinomas differentiation are analyzed. Ultrasound is the most commonly used modality for the diagnosis of ovarian tumors. Ultrasound, using modern ultrasound technologies, performed by an experienced specialist, allows avoiding unnecessary or ineffective surgery. The imaging features typical for serous borderline tumors and tumors of low-grade malignancy are important for timely and correct differential diagnosis, which results in the selection of an adequate volume of surgery for these patients. Improved imaging of ovarian cancer opens up prospects for increasing the treatment effectiveness and evaluation of possibilities of early diagnosis of serous borderline ovarian tumors and low-grade serous carcinomas.

Keywords:
рак яичников, пограничные опухоли яичников, ультразвуковая диагностика, серозные опухоли яичников, ovarian cancer, borderline ovarian tumors, ultrasound, serous ovarian tumors