ESGO/ISUOG/IOTA/ESGE Consensus Statement on preoperative diagnosis of ovarian tumors
Open accessAbstract
The European Society of Gynaecological Oncology (ESGO), the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology (ISUOG), the International Ovarian Tumour Analysis (IOTA) group and the European Society for Gynaecological Endoscopy (ESGE) jointly developed clinically relevant and evidence-based statements on the preoperative diagnosis of ovarian tumors, including imaging techniques, biomarkers and prediction models. ESGO/ISUOG/IOTA/ESGE nominated a multidisciplinary international group, including expert practising clinicians and researchers who have demonstrated leadership and expertise in the preoperative diagnosis of ovarian tumors and management of patients with ovarian cancer (19 experts across Europe). A patient representative was also included in the group. To ensure that the statements were evidence-based, the current literature was reviewed and critically appraised. Preliminary statements were drafted based on the review of the relevant literature. During a conference call, the whole group discussed each preliminary statement and a first round of voting was carried out. Statements were removed when consensus among group members was not obtained. The voters had the opportunity to provide comments/suggestions with their votes. The statements were then revised accordingly. Another round of voting was carried out according to the same rules to allow the whole group to evaluate the revised version of the statements. The group achieved consensus on 18 statements. This Consensus Statement presents these ESGO/ISUOG/IOTA/ESGE statements on the preoperative diagnosis of ovarian tumors and the assessment of carcinomatosis, together with a summary of the evidence supporting each statement.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
A decision threshold of 0.1 (10%) for the probability of malignancy is often recommended.
“A decision threshold of 0 ⋅ 1 (10%) for the probability of malignancy is often recommended. 23”
From Evaluation of performance measures in predictive artificial intelligence models to support medical decisions: overview and guidance (2025) · cites this paper as [23]
At the commonly recommended threshold of 10%, the ADNEX model classified 578 patients as high risk, of whom 414 had a malignant tumour (true positive) and 164 had a benign tumour (false positive); the remaining 316 patients were classified as low risk, of whom 296 had a benign tumour (true negative) and 20 had a malignant tumour (false negative).
“At the commonly recommended threshold of 10% in our case study, 23 ADNEX classified 578 patients as high risk, of whom 414 had a malignant tumour (true positive) and 164 had a benign tumour (false positive). The remaining 316 patients were classified as low risk, of whom 296 had a benign tumour (true negative) and 20 had a malignant tumour (false negative).”
From Evaluation of performance measures in predictive artificial intelligence models to support medical decisions: overview and guidance (2025) · cites this paper as [23]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 194 · Cited by 114
Part of this paper’s reference list could not be split into single entries.
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- Education and Practical Standards Committee, European Federation of Societies for Ultrasound in Medicine and Biology. Minimum training recommendations for the practice of medical ultrasound. Ultraschall Med 2006; 27: 79-105.
- Erratum. J Am Coll Radiol 2019; 16: 403-406.
- Authors
- Timmerman, D., Planchamp, F., Bourne, T., Landolfo, C., du Bois, A., Chiva, L., Cibula, D., Concin, N., Fischerova, D., Froyman, W., Gallardo, G., Lemley, B., Loft, A., Mereu, L., Morice, P., Querleu, D., Testa, A. C., Vergote, I., Vandecaveye, V., Scambia, G., & Fotopoulou, C.
- Affiliations
- Universitair Ziekenhuis Leuven (BE)
- Institut Bergonié (FR)
- Agostino Gemelli University Polyclinic (IT)
- Department of Gynaecology and Gynaecological Oncology, Evangelische Kliniken Essen‐Mitte Essen Germany
- Clinica Universidad de Navarra (ES)
- Charles University (CZ)
- Innsbruck Medical University (AT)
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, General University Hospital in Prague Prague Czech Republic
- KU Leuven (BE)
- Department of Radiology, University Clinic of Navarra Madrid Spain
- Patient Representative, President of Kræfti Underlivet (KIU) Denmark
- Copenhagen University Hospital (DK)
- Ospedale Santa Chiara (IT)
- Institut Gustave Roussy (FR)
- Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore (IT)
- Hammersmith Hospital (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Timmerman, D.
- ORCID
- Venue
- Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2021-06-10
- Volume
- 58
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 148-168
- ISSN
- 0960-7692 (ISSN-L)
- 1469-0705
- OpenAlex
- W3143960169
- Cited by
- 114
- References
- 194
- Citations by year
- 2026: 24 · 2025: 31 · 2024: 22 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 8
- FWCI
- 12.71
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Lirias (KU Leuven) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Spiral (Imperial College London) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Funders
- International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology
- Université de Strasbourg
- Rigshospitalet
- Institut Gustave-Roussy
- European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Reproductive Medicine › Ovarian cancer diagnosis and treatment
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › MRI in cancer diagnosis
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Pathology and Forensic Medicine › Breast Lesions and Carcinomas
- Keywords
- ovarian neoplasms, preoperative diagnosis, ovarian cancer, carcinomatosis, ovarian imaging, biomarkers, prediction model, consensus statement
- MeSH terms
- Clinical Decision-Making, Adnexal Diseases, Female, Gynecology, Humans, Ovarian Neoplasms, Societies, Medical, Gynecologic Surgical Procedures, Biomarkers, Tumor, Evidence-Based Medicine, Consensus, Preoperative Period
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
