35 research outputs found

    Reservations Regarding O-RADS Recommendations Response

    No full text
    status: publishe

    First International Consensus Report on Adnexal Masses: Management Recommendations

    No full text
    The First International Consensus Conference on Adnexal Masses was convened to thoroughly examine the state of the science and to formulate recommendations for clinical assessment and management. The panel included representatives of societies in the fields of gynecology, gynecologic oncology, radiology, and pathology and clinicians from Europe, Canada, and the United States. In the United States, there are approximately 9.1 surgeries per malignancy compared to the European International Ovarian Tumor Analysis center trials, with only 2.3 (oncology centers) and 5.9 (other centers) reported surgeries per malignancy, suggesting that there is room to improve our preoperative assessments. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Practice Bulletin on "Management of Adnexal Masses," reaffirmed in 2015 (Obstet Gynecol 2007; 110:201-214), still states, "With the exception of simple cysts on a transvaginal ultrasound finding, most pelvic masses in postmenopausal women will require surgical intervention." The panel concluded that patients would benefit not only from a more conservative approach to many benign adnexal masses but also from optimization of physician referral patterns to a gynecologic oncologist in cases of suspected ovarian malignancies. A number of next-step options were offered to aid in management of cases with sonographically indeterminate adnexal masses. This process would provide an opportunity to improve risk stratification for indeterminate masses via the provision of alternatives, including but not limited to evidence-based risk-assessment algorithms and referral to an "expert sonologist" or to a gynecologic oncologist. The panel believed that these efforts to improve clinical management and preoperative triage patterns would ultimately improve patient care.status: publishe

    ACR Appropriateness Criteria\u3csup\u3e®\u3c/sup\u3e Multiple Gestations

    No full text
    © 2017 American College of Radiology Women with twin or higher-order pregnancies will typically have more ultrasound examinations than women with a singleton pregnancy. Most women will have at minimum a first trimester scan, a nuchal translucency evaluation scan, fetal anatomy scan at 18 to 22 weeks, and one or more scans in the third trimester to evaluate growth. Multiple gestations are at higher risk for preterm delivery, congenital anomalies, fetal growth restriction, placenta previa, vasa previa, and velamentous cord insertion. Chorionicity and amnionicity should be determined as early as possible when a twin pregnancy is identified to permit triage of the monochorionic group into a closer surveillance model. Screening for congenital heart disease is warranted in monochorionic twins because they have an increased rate of congenital cardiac anomalies. In addition, monochorionic twins have a higher risk of developing cardiac abnormalities in later gestation related to right ventricular outflow obstruction, in particular the subgroups with twin-twin transfusion syndrome or selective intrauterine growth restriction. Monochorionic twins have unique complications including twin-to-twin transfusion syndrome, twin embolization syndrome, and acardius, or twin-reversed arterial perfusion sequence. The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and revision include an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer reviewed journals and the application of well-established methodologies (RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation or GRADE) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In those instances where evidence is lacking or equivocal, expert opinion may supplement the available evidence to recommend imaging or treatment
    corecore