Margit Dueholm

Objectives: To evaluate a scoring system using transvaginal ultrasound (TVS) to predict high‐risk endometrial cancer. Methods: Consecutive patients with endometrial cancer/atypical hyperplasia (n = 266) were preoperatively examined by residents using TVS. Clinical parameters, endometrial morphology and Doppler scores were recorded using a gray scale and Doppler TVS and related to final histopathology at hysterectomy. Multivariate logistic regression was used to correlate imaging and clinical parameters to the presence of high‐risk endometrial cancer (defined as FIGO stage Ib‐IV or high‐grade tumors [grade 3/non‐endometroid]) to develop the High‐Risk Endometrial Cancer (HIREC) score. Results: High‐risk endometrial cancer (n = 128) and lympho‐vascular space invasion (LVSI) (n = 43) were predicted by increased endometrial thickness (ET), age, and Doppler score. The HIREC scoring system, based on age, Doppler score, and ET performed well with an AUC of 78.5% (CI 95%: 73–84) to predict high‐risk cancer. By using a 2‐step strategy of (1) Preoperative identification of high‐grade tumors by biopsy, (2) Assessing the HIREC score, high‐risk endometrial cancer could be predicted at a HIREC score of ≥7 with sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of 72.7, 88.4, and 80.8%. Low‐risk endometrial cancer was predicted at HIREC scores of <5 with sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy values of 91.4, 46.4 and 68.1%, respectively. Conclusions: Low and high HIREC scores effectively predicted low‐ and high‐risk endometrial cancer. The score is a simple point system suitable for the first ultrasound assessment. It may be used in preoperative work‐up to select treatment and additional imaging, but it needs to be validated in further studies.

Our aim was to compare the inter-rater agreement about transvaginal ultrasonography (TVS) with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with regard to diagnosing adenomyosis and for assessing various predefined imaging features of adenomyosis, in the same set of women. The study cohort included 51 women, prospectively, consecutively recruited based on a clinical suspicion of adenomyosis. MRIs and TVS videoclips and 3D volumes were retrospectively assessed by four experienced radiologists and five experienced sonographers, respectively. Each rater subjectively evaluated the presence or absence of adenomyosis, as well as imaging features suggestive of adenomyosis. Fleiss kappa (κ) was used to reflect inter-rater agreement for categorical data, and the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was used to reflect the reliability of quantitative data. Agreement between raters for diagnosing adenomyosis was higher for TVS than for MRI (κ = 0.42 vs. 0.28). MRI had a higher inter-rater agreement in assessing wall asymmetry, irregular junctional zone (JZ), and the presence of myometrial cysts, while TVU had a better agreement for assessing globular shape. MRI showed a moderate to good reliability for measuring the JZ (ICC = 0.57–0.82). For TVS, the JZ was unmeasurable in >50% of cases, and the remaining cases had low reliability (ICC = −0.31–0.08). We found that inter-rater agreement for diagnosing adenomyosis was higher for TVS than for MRI, despite the fact that MRI showed a higher inter-rater agreement in most specific features. Measurements of JZ in the coronal plane with 3D TVS were unreliable and thus unlikely to be useful for diagnosing adenomyosis.

Our aim was to compare the inter-rater agreement of Transvaginal ultrasonography (TVS) with Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) regarding diagnosing adenomyosis and for various predefined imaging features of adenomyosis in the same set of women. MRIs were assessed by four experienced radiologists and 2D TVS videoclips and 3D ultrasound volumes were assessed by five experienced sonographers. Each rater subjectively evaluated the presence or absence of adenomyosis, assessed various imaging. Fleiss kappa (κ) was used to reflect inter-rater agreement for categorical data and the Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) to reflect the reliability of quantitative data. Agreement between raters for diagnosing adenomyosis was higher for TVS than for MRI (κ =0.42 vs.0.28). MRI had a higher inter-rater agreement in assessing wall asymmetry irregular Junctional Zone (JZ) presence of myometrial cysts, while TVU had a better agreement for globular shape. MRI showed a moderate-good reliability for measuring the JZ (ICC=0.57-0.82). For TVS, JZ was unmeasurable in > 50% of cases and the remaining cases had a low reliability (ICC=-0.31-0.08). We found that Inter-rater agreement for diagnosing adenomyosis was higher for TVS than for MRI, despite that MRI showed a higher inter-rater agreement in most specific features. Measurements of JZ in the coronal plane with 3D TVS were unreliable and thus unlikely to be useful for diagnosing adenomyosis.

STUDY QUESTION: What outcomes should be reported in all studies investigating uterus-sparing interventions for treating uterine adenomyosis? SUMMARY ANSWER: We identified 24 specific and 26 generic core outcomes in nine domains. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Research reporting adenomyosis treatment is not patient-centred and shows wide variation in outcome selection, definition, reporting and measurement of quality. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: An international consensus development process was performed between March and December 2021. Participants in round one were 150 healthcare professionals, 17 researchers and 334 individuals or partners with lived experience of adenomyosis from 48 high-, middle- and low-income countries. There were 291 participants in the second round. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Stakeholders included active researchers in the field, healthcare professionals involved in diagnosis and treatment, and people and their partners with lived experience of adenomyosis. The core component of the process was a 2-step modified Delphi electronic survey. The Steering Committee analysed the results and created the final core outcome set (COS) in a semi-structured meeting. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: A total of 241 outcomes was identified and distilled into a ‘long list’ of 71 potential outcomes. The final COS comprises 24 specific and 26 generic core outcomes across nine domains, including pain, uterine bleeding, reproductive outcomes, haematology, urinary system, life impact, delivery of care, adverse events and reporting items, all with definitions provided by the Steering Committee. Nineteen of these outcomes will apply only to certain study types. Although not included in the COS, the Steering Committee recommended that three health economic outcomes should be recorded. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Patients from continents other than Europe were under-represented in this survey. A lack of translation of the survey might have limited the active participation of people in non-English speaking countries. Only 58% of participants returned to round two, but analysis did not indicate attrition bias. There is a significant lack of scientific evidence regarding which symptoms are caused by adenomyosis and when they are related to other co-existent disorders such as endometriosis. As future research provides more clarity, the appropriate review and revision of the COS will be necessary. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Implementing this COS in future studies on the treatment of adenomyosis will improve the quality of reporting and aid evidence synthesis. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): No specific funding was received for this work. T.T. received a grant (grant number 2020083) from the South Eastern Norwegian Health Authority during the course of this work. T.T. receives personal fees from General Electrics and Medtronic for lectures on ultrasound. E.R.L. is the chairman of the Norwegian Endometriosis Association. M.G.M. is a consultant for Abbvie Inc and Myovant, receives research funding from AbbVie and is Chair of the Women’s Health Research Collaborative. S.-W.G. is a board member of the Asian Society of Endometriosis and Adenomyosis, on the scientific advisory board of the endometriosis foundation of America, previous congress chair for the World Endometriosis Society, for none of which he received personal fees. E.S. received outside of this work grants for two multicentre trials on endometriosis from the National Institute for Health Research UK, the Rosetrees Trust, and the Barts and the London Charity, he is a member of the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), Medicines for Women’s Health Expert Advisory Group, he is an ambassador for the World Endometriosis Society, and he received personal fees for lectures from Hologic, Olympus, Medtronic, Johnson & Johnson, Intuitive and Karl Storz. M.H. is member of the British Society for Gynaecological Endoscopy subcommittee. No other conflict of interest was declared. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: N/A.

Objectives: To evaluate whether the Morphological Uterus Sonographic Assessment (MUSA) features of adenomyosis need to be better defined and, if deemed necessary, to reach consensus on the updated definitions.Methods: A modified Delphi procedure was performed among European gynecologists with expertise in ultrasound diagnosis of adenomyosis. To identify MUSA features that might need revision, 15 two‐dimensional (2D) video recordings (four recordings also included three‐dimensional (3D) still images) of transvaginal ultrasound (TVS) examinations of the uterus were presented in the first Delphi round (online questionnaire). Experts were asked to confirm or refute the presence of each of the nine MUSA features of adenomyosis (described in the original MUSA consensus statement) in each of the 15 videoclips and to provide comments. In the second Delphi round (online questionnaire), the results of the first round and suggestions for revision of MUSA features were shared with the experts before they were asked to assess a new set of 2D and 3D still images of TVS examinations and to provide feedback on the proposed revisions. A third Delphi round (virtual group meeting) was conducted to discuss and reach final consensus on revised definitions of MUSA features. Consensus was predefined as at least 66.7% agreement between experts.Results: Of 18 invited experts, 16 agreed to participate in the Delphi procedure. Eleven experts completed and four experts partly finished the first round. The experts identified a need for more detailed definitions of some MUSA features. They recommended use of 3D ultrasound to optimize visualization of the junctional zone. Fifteen experts participated in the second round and reached consensus on the presence or absence of ultrasound features of adenomyosis in most of the still images. Consensus was reached for all revised definitions except those for subendometrial lines and buds and interrupted junctional zone. Thirteen experts joined the online meeting, in which they discussed and agreed on final revisions of the MUSA definitions. There was consensus on the need to distinguish between direct features of adenomyosis, i.e. features indicating presence of ectopic endometrial tissue in the myometrium, and indirect features, i.e. features reflecting changes in the myometrium secondary to presence of endometrial tissue in the myometrium. Myometrial cysts, hyperechogenic islands and echogenic subendometrial lines and buds were classified unanimously as direct features of adenomyosis. Globular uterus, asymmetrical myometrial thickening, fan‐shaped shadowing, translesional vascularity, irregular junctional zone and interrupted junctional zone were classified as indirect features of adenomyosis.Conclusion: Consensus between gynecologists with expertise in ultrasound diagnosis of adenomyosis was achieved regarding revised definitions of the MUSA features of adenomyosis and on the classification of MUSA features as direct or indirect signs of adenomyosis. © 2021 The Authors. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

Objective: To develop a standardized sonographic evaluation and reporting system for Cesarean scar pregnancy (CSP) in the first trimester, for use by both general gynecology and expert clinics.Methods: A modified Delphi procedure was carried out, in which 28 international experts in obstetric and gynecological ultrasonography were invited to participate. Extensive experience in the use of ultrasound to evaluate Cesarean section (CS) scars in early pregnancy and/or publications concerning CSP or niche evaluation was required to participate. Relevant items for the detection and evaluation of CSP were determined based on the results of a literature search. Consensus was predefined as a level of agreement of at least 70% for each item, and a minimum of three Delphi rounds were planned (two online questionnaires and one group meeting).Results: Sixteen experts participated in the Delphi study and four Delphi rounds were performed. In total, 58 items were determined to be relevant. We differentiated between basic measurements to be performed in general practice and advanced measurements for expert centers or for research purposes. The panel also formulated advice on indications for referral to an expert clinic. Consensus was reached for all 58 items on the definition, terminology, relevant items for evaluation and reporting of CSP. It was recommended that the first CS scar evaluation to determine the location of the pregnancy should be performed at 6–7 weeks' gestation using transvaginal ultrasound. The use of magnetic resonance imaging was not considered to add value in the diagnosis of CSP. A CSP was defined as a pregnancy with implantation in, or in close contact with, the niche. The experts agreed that a CSP can occur only when a niche is present and not in relation to a healed CS scar. Relevant sonographic items to record included gestational sac (GS) size, vascularity, location in relation to the uterine vessels, thickness of the residual myometrium and location of the pregnancy in relation to the uterine cavity and serosa. According to its location, a CSP can be classified as: (1) CSP in which the largest part of the GS protrudes towards the uterine cavity; (2) CSP in which the largest part of the GS is embedded in the myometrium but does not cross the serosal contour; and (3) CSP in which the GS is partially located beyond the outer contour of the cervix or uterus. The type of CSP may change with advancing gestation. Future studies are needed to validate this reporting system and the value of the different CSP types.Conclusion: Consensus was achieved among experts regarding the sonographic evaluation and reporting of CSP in the first trimester. © 2021 The Authors. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.