Management of adnexal mass: A comparison of five national guidelines

Objectives: General gynecologists are often the first to face a newly diagnosed adnexal mass. Bothering mass symptoms, fertility issues, and the effect of a possible surgical intervention on fertility in term of mechanical factor and ovarian follicular reserve are all considerations that should be accounted for. This study summarizes and compares five different adnexal mass management guidelines, enabling clinicians to peruse consensus and controversy issues, thus choosing the optimal management method. Design: We retrieved, reviewed and compared the most recent national guidelines of adnexal mass management from the national societies of the United States (American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists), England (the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists), Canada (the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada), Australia (the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners), and France (French College of Gynaecologists and Obstetricians). Results: There is a broad consensus regarding the role of transvaginal ultrasound as part of the initial evaluation of an adnexal mass and the radiological characteristics suggesting it being malignant. The role of transabdominal ultrasound or doppler mode is controversial. The use of MRI in cases of indeterminate adnexal masses is widely accepted. Ultrasound-guided aspiration is generally not recommended. There is a broad consensus that CA-125 should not be used as an ovarian cancer disease screening tool, though its role in the initial evaluation of adnexal masses is controversial. Risk prediction models are generally accepted, particularly the 'International Ovarian Tumor Analysis simple rules' and the 'Risk of Malignancy Index'. Conclusion: Adnexal mass management national guidelines, though similar, had noticeable variations in the content, references cited, and recommendations made. While this variation might raise a concern as to the reproducibility of synthesizing literature, it can help practitioners present all spectra of recommendations and available data. (c) 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Automated summary

The study compared five different national guidelines for the management of adnexal masses, with a broad consensus on the role of transvaginal ultrasound in initial evaluation and radiological characteristics suggesting malignancy. Controversies exist regarding transabdominal ultrasound and the use of CA-125 as a screening tool. Risk prediction models are widely accepted.