Are we better off using multiple endometriosis classifications in imaging and surgery than settle for one universal less than perfect protocol? Review of staging systems in ultrasound, magnetic resonance and surgery

Kód výsledku v IS VaVaI

<a href="https://www.isvavai.cz/riv?ss=detail&h=RIV%2F00064165%3A_____%2F22%3A10428902" target="_blank" >RIV/00064165:_____/22:10428902 - isvavai.cz</a>

Nalezeny alternativní kódy

RIV/00216208:11110/22:10428902

Výsledek na webu

<a href="https://verso.is.cuni.cz/pub/verso.fpl?fname=obd_publikace_handle&handle=LOXT-Zfjvi" target="_blank" >https://verso.is.cuni.cz/pub/verso.fpl?fname=obd_publikace_handle&handle=LOXT-Zfjvi</a>

DOI - Digital Object Identifier

<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01443615.2021.1887111" target="_blank" >10.1080/01443615.2021.1887111</a>

Jazyk výsledku

angličtina

Název v původním jazyce

Are we better off using multiple endometriosis classifications in imaging and surgery than settle for one universal less than perfect protocol? Review of staging systems in ultrasound, magnetic resonance and surgery

Popis výsledku v původním jazyce

There are multiple classifications in imaging and surgery of endometriosis and in this article, we offer a review of the main evaluation systems. The International Deep Endometriosis Analysis group consensus is the leading document for ultrasound assessment, while magnetic resonance imaging is guided by the European Society for Urogenital Radiology recommendations on technical protocol. In surgery, the revised American Society for Reproductive Medicine classification is the oldest system, ideally combined with newer classifications, such as Enzian or Endometriosis Fertility Index. Recently, The World Endometriosis Research Foundation Endometriosis Phenome and Biobanking Harmonisation Project introduced detailed proforma for clinical and intraoperative findings. There is still no universal consensus, so the initial emphasis should be on the uniform reporting of the disease extent until research clarifies more the correlations between extent, symptoms and progression in order to develop a reliable staging system.Impact Statement What is already known on this subject? There have been several reviews of surgical classifications, comparing their scope and practical use, while in the imaging the attempts for literature review has been scarce. What do the results of this study add? This is the first up to date review offering detailed analysis of the main classification systems across the three main areas involved in endometriosis care - ultrasound, MRI and surgery. The mutual awareness of the radiological classifications for surgeons and vice versa is crucial in an efficient multidisciplinary communication and patient care. On these comparisons we were able to demonstrate the lack of consensus in description of the extent of the disease and even further lack of prognostic features (with the exemption of one surgical system). What are the implications of these findings for clinical practice and/or further research? Future attempts of scientific societies should focus on defining uniform nomenclature for extent description. In the second step the staging classification should encompass prognostic value (risk of disease and symptoms recurrence).

Název v anglickém jazyce

Are we better off using multiple endometriosis classifications in imaging and surgery than settle for one universal less than perfect protocol? Review of staging systems in ultrasound, magnetic resonance and surgery

Popis výsledku anglicky

There are multiple classifications in imaging and surgery of endometriosis and in this article, we offer a review of the main evaluation systems. The International Deep Endometriosis Analysis group consensus is the leading document for ultrasound assessment, while magnetic resonance imaging is guided by the European Society for Urogenital Radiology recommendations on technical protocol. In surgery, the revised American Society for Reproductive Medicine classification is the oldest system, ideally combined with newer classifications, such as Enzian or Endometriosis Fertility Index. Recently, The World Endometriosis Research Foundation Endometriosis Phenome and Biobanking Harmonisation Project introduced detailed proforma for clinical and intraoperative findings. There is still no universal consensus, so the initial emphasis should be on the uniform reporting of the disease extent until research clarifies more the correlations between extent, symptoms and progression in order to develop a reliable staging system.Impact Statement What is already known on this subject? There have been several reviews of surgical classifications, comparing their scope and practical use, while in the imaging the attempts for literature review has been scarce. What do the results of this study add? This is the first up to date review offering detailed analysis of the main classification systems across the three main areas involved in endometriosis care - ultrasound, MRI and surgery. The mutual awareness of the radiological classifications for surgeons and vice versa is crucial in an efficient multidisciplinary communication and patient care. On these comparisons we were able to demonstrate the lack of consensus in description of the extent of the disease and even further lack of prognostic features (with the exemption of one surgical system). What are the implications of these findings for clinical practice and/or further research? Future attempts of scientific societies should focus on defining uniform nomenclature for extent description. In the second step the staging classification should encompass prognostic value (risk of disease and symptoms recurrence).

Druh

J_imp - Článek v periodiku v databázi Web of Science

CEP obor

—

OECD FORD obor

30214 - Obstetrics and gynaecology

Projekt

—

Návaznosti

I - Institucionalni podpora na dlouhodoby koncepcni rozvoj vyzkumne organizace

Rok uplatnění

2022

Kód důvěrnosti údajů

S - Úplné a pravdivé údaje o projektu nepodléhají ochraně podle zvláštních právních předpisů

Název periodika

Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology

ISSN

0144-3615

e-ISSN

1364-6893

Svazek periodika

42

Číslo periodika v rámci svazku

1

Stát vydavatele periodika

GB - Spojené království Velké Británie a Severního Irska

Počet stran výsledku

7

Strana od-do

10-16

Kód UT WoS článku

000652136900001

EID výsledku v databázi Scopus

2-s2.0-85106255715