Subscribe to RSS
Please copy the URL and add it into your RSS Feed Reader.
https://www.thieme-connect.de/rss/thieme/en/10.1055-s-00000089.xml
Ultraschall Med 2022; 43(02): 146-158
DOI: 10.1055/a-1663-6322
DOI: 10.1055/a-1663-6322
Guidelines & Recommendations
Quality Requirements for gynecological ultrasound examinations of DEGUM level II – Recommendations of the Sections/Working Groups Gynecology and Obstetrics of DEGUM, ÖGUM and SGUM
Article in several languages: English | deutsch
Abstract
Gynecological sonography is the central and most frequently used technical examination method used by gynecologists. Its focus is on the clarification of masses of the uterus and the adnexa, fertility diagnosis, clarification of bleeding disorders and chronic and acute pelvic problems, pelvic floor and incontinence diagnosis as well as the differential diagnosis of disturbed early pregnancy. The indication for diagnostic and therapeutic interventions, preoperative planning and postoperative controls are largely based on the findings of gynecological sonography. These examinations are particularly dependent on the experience of the examiner.
Based on the proven multi-stage concept of obstetric diagnostics, gynecological sonography should primarily be performed by an experienced and specialized examiner in patients for whom the initial gynecological examinations have not yet led to a sufficient assessment of the findings. So that the expert status required for this has an objective basis, the Gynecology and Obstetrics Section of DEGUM in cooperation with ÖGUM and SGUM implemented the option of acquiring DEGUM Level II for gynecological sonography. The effectiveness of the care in the multi-level concept depends on the quality of the ultrasound examination at level I. Quality requirements for the basic examination and the differentiation between the basic and further examination have therefore already been defined by DEGUM/ÖGUM. The present work is intended to set out quality requirements for gynecological sonography of DEGUM level II and for the correspondingly certified gynecologists.
Common pathologies from gynecological sonography and requirements for imaging and documentation are described.
Publication History
Received: 07 June 2021
Accepted: 20 September 2021
Article published online:
08 November 2021
© 2021. Thieme. All rights reserved.
Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany
-
References
- 1 Timmerman D, Schwärzler P, Collins WP. et al. Subjective assessment of adnexal masses with the use of ultrasonography: an analysis of interobserver variability and experience. Ultrasound Obst Gyn 1999; 13: 11-16 DOI: 10.1046/j.1469-0705.1999.13010011.x.
- 2 Wong M, Thanatsis N, Amin T. et al. Ultrasound diagnosis of endometrial cancer by subjective pattern recognition in women with postmenopausal bleeding: prospective inter‐rater agreement and reliability study. Ultrasound Obst Gyn 2021; DOI: 10.1002/uog.22141.
- 3 Faschingbauer F, Benz M, Häberle L. et al. Subjective assessment of ovarian masses using pattern recognition: the impact of experience on diagnostic performance and interobserver variability. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2012; 285: 1663-1669 DOI: 10.1007/s00404-012-2229-2.
- 4 Holsbeke CV, Daemen A, Yazbek J. et al. Ultrasound Experience Substantially Impacts on Diagnostic Performance and Confidence when Adnexal Masses Are Classified Using Pattern Recognition. Gynecol Obstet Inves 2010; 69: 160-168 DOI: 10.1159/000265012.
- 5 Sayasneh A, Kaijser J, Preisler J. et al. Accuracy of ultrasonography performed by examiners with varied training and experience in predicting specific pathology of adnexal masses. Ultrasound Obst Gyn 2015; 45: 605-612 DOI: 10.1002/uog.14675.
- 6 Timmerman D, Planchamp F, Bourne T. et al. ESGO/ISUOG/IOTA/ESGE Consensus statements on the pre‐operative diagnosis of ovarian tumours*. Ultrasound Obst Gyn 2021; DOI: 10.1002/uog.23635.
- 7 Gynecologists TAC of O and. Practice Bulletin No. 174: Evaluation und Management of Adnexal Masses. Obstetrics Gynecol 2016; 128: e210-e226 DOI: 10.1097/aog.0000000000001768.
- 8 Thomassin-Naggara I, Daraï E, Lécuru F. et al. Valeur diagnostique de l’imagerie (échographie, doppler, scanner, IRM et TEP-TDM) pour le diagnostic d’une masse ovarienne suspecte et le bilan d’extension d’un cancer de l’ovaire, des trompes ou péritonéal primitif. Article rédigé sur la base de la recommandation nationale de bonnes pratiques cliniques en cancérologie intitulée «Conduites à tenir initiales devant des patientes atteintes d’un cancer épithélial de l’ovaire» élaborée par FRANCOGYN, CNGOF, SFOG, GINECO-ARCAGY sous l’égide du CNGOF et labellisée par l’INCa. Gynécologie Obstétrique Fertilité Sénologie 2019; 47: 123-133 DOI: 10.1016/j.gofs.2018.12.012.
- 9 Gynaecologists RC of O and. The Management of Ovarian Cysts in Postmenopausal Women. Green-top Guideline No34 2016. Im Internet: https://www.rcog.org.uk/globalassets/documents/guidelines/green-top-guidelines/gtg_34.pdf
- 10 Wattar B, Rimmer M, Rogozinska E. et al. Accuracy of imaging modalities for adnexal torsion: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. Bjog Int J Obstetrics Gynaecol 2021; 128: 37-44 DOI: 10.1111/1471-0528.16371.
- 11 Grimbizis GF, Sardo ADS, Saravelos SH. et al. The Thessaloniki ESHRE/ESGE consensus on diagnosis of female genital anomalies. Human Reproduction 2016; 31: 2-7 DOI: 10.1093/humrep/dev264.
- 12 Shetty M. Imaging and differential diagnosis of ovarian cancer. Seminars Ultrasound Ct Mri 2019; 40: 302-318 DOI: 10.1053/j.sult.2019.04.002.
- 13 Imaging: EP on W, Atri M, Alabousi A, et al. ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Clinically Suspected Adnexal Mass, No Acute Symptoms. J Am Coll Radiol 2019; 16: S77-S93 DOI: 10.1016/j.jacr.2019.02.011.
- 14 Kaijser J, Vandecaveye V, Deroose CM. et al. Imaging techniques for the pre-surgical diagnosis of adnexal tumours. Best Pract Res Cl Ob 2014; 28: 683-695 DOI: 10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2014.03.013.
- 15 Dodge JE, Covens AL, Lacchetti C. et al. Preoperative identification of a suspicious adnexal mass: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Gynecol Oncol 2012; 126: 157-166 DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2012.03.048.
- 16 Williams P, Murchie P, Bond C. Patient and primary care delays in the diagnostic pathway of gynaecological cancers: a systematic review of influencing factors. Br J Gen Pract 2019; 69: bjgp19X700781 DOI: 10.3399/bjgp19x700781.
- 17 Baun ML, Falborg AZ, Hjertholm P. et al. Ovarian cancer stage, variation in transvaginal ultrasound examination rates and the impact of an urgent referral pathway: A national ecological cohort study. Acta Obstet Gyn Scan 2019; 98: 1540-1548 DOI: 10.1111/aogs.13693.
- 18 Verleye L, Vergote I, van der Zee AGJ. Patterns of care in surgery for ovarian cancer in Europe. European J Surg Oncol Ejso 2010; 36: S108-S114 DOI: 10.1016/j.ejso.2010.06.006.
- 19 Grab D, Merz E, Prömpeler H. et al. Standards zur gynaekologischen Sonografie. Ultraschall in Med 2011; 32: 415-417 DOI: 10.1055/s-0031-1281592.
- 20 de Bosch TV, Dueholm M, Leone FPG. et al. Terms, definitions and measurements to describe sonographic features of myometrium and uterine masses: a consensus opinion from the Morphological Uterus Sonographic Assessment (MUSA) group. Ultrasound Obst Gyn 2015; 46: 284-298 DOI: 10.1002/uog.14806.
- 21 Munro MG, Critchley HOD, Fraser IS. et al. The FIGO classification of causes of abnormal uterine bleeding in the reproductive years. Fertil Steril 2011; 95: 2204-2208.e3 DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2011.03.079.
- 22 Multinu F, Casarin J, Tortorella L. et al. Incidence of sarcoma in patients undergoing hysterectomy for benign indications: a population-based study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2019; 220: 179.e1–e179.e10 DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2018.11.1086.
- 23 Ludovisi M, Moro F, Pasciuto T. et al. Imaging in gynecological disease (15): clinical and ultrasound characteristics of uterine sarcoma. Ultrasound Obst Gyn 2019; 54: 676-687 DOI: 10.1002/uog.20270.
- 24 Amant F, van den Bosch T, Vergote I. et al. Morcellation of uterine leiomyomas: a plea for patient triage. The Lancet Oncology 2015; 16: 1454-1456 DOI: 10.1016/s1470-2045(15)00375-7.
- 25 Testa AC, Legge AD, Blasis ID. et al. Imaging techniques for the evaluation of cervical cancer. Best practice & research Clinical obstetrics & gynaecology 2014; 28: 741-768 DOI: 10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2014.04.009.
- 26 Epstein E, Testa A, Gaurilcikas A. et al. Early-stage cervical cancer: tumor delineation by magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasound – a European multicenter trial. Gynecologic oncology 2013; 128: 449-453 DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2012.09.025.
- 27 Byun JM, Kim YN, Jeong DH. et al. Three-dimensional transvaginal ultrasonography for locally advanced cervical cancer. International journal of gynecological cancer: official journal of the International Gynecological Cancer Society 2013; 23: 1459-1464 DOI: 10.1097/igc.0b013e3182a16997.
- 28 Bakay OA, Golovko TS. Use of elastography for cervical cancer diagnostics. Experimental oncology 2015; 37: 139-145 DOI: 10.1002/uog.11223.
- 29 DGGG, OEGGG, SGGG. AWMF Leitlinie Registernr.015/052 Weibliche genitale Fehlbildungen. Im Internet: https://www.awmf.org/uploads/tx_szleitlinien/015-052l_S1_Weibliche_genitale_Fehlbildungen_2020-06.pdf
- 30 Society TAF. The American Fertility Society classifications of adnexal adhesions, distal tubal occlusion, tubal occlusion secondary to tubal ligation, tubal pregnancies, Müllerian anomalies and intrauterine adhesions. Fertil Steril 1988; 49: 944-955 DOI: 10.1016/s0015-0282(16)59942-7.
- 31 Oppelt P, Renner SP, Brucker S. et al. The VCUAM (Vagina Cervix Uterus Adnex–associated Malformation) Classification: a new classification for genital malformations. Fertil Steril 2005; 84: 1493-1497 DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2005.05.036.
- 32 Grimbizis GF, Gordts S, Sardo ADS. et al. The ESHRE/ESGE consensus on the classification of female genital tract congenital anomalies. Human Reproduction 2013; 28: 2032-2044 DOI: 10.1093/humrep/det098.
- 33 Imboden S, Müller M, Raio L. et al. Klinische Bedeutung des 3D-Ultraschalls neben MRI bei uterinen Fehlbildungen. Ultraschall in Med 2014; 35: 440-444 DOI: 10.1055/s-0033-1335664.
- 34 Ghi T, Casadio P, Kuleva M. et al. Accuracy of three-dimensional ultrasound in diagnosis and classification of congenital uterine anomalies. Fertility and Sterility 2009; 92: 808-813 DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2008.05.086.
- 35 Bermejo C, Martinez-Ten P, Recio M. et al. Three-dimensional ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging assessment of cervix and vagina in women with uterine malformations. Ultrasound Obst Gyn 2014; 43: 336-345 DOI: 10.1002/uog.12536.
- 36 Ludwin A, Martins WP, Nastri CO. et al. Congenital Uterine Malformation by Experts (CUME): better criteria for distinguishing between normal/arcuate and septate uterus?. Ultrasound Obst Gyn 2018; 51: 101-109 DOI: 10.1002/uog.18923.
- 37 Bajka M, Badir S. Fundus Thickness Assessment by 3D Transvaginal Ultrasound Allows Metrics-Based Diagnosis and Treatment of Congenital Uterine Anomalies. Ultraschall in Med 2017; 38: 183-189 DOI: 10.1055/s-0034-1399701.
- 38 Leone FPG, Timmerman D, Bourne T. et al. Terms, definitions and measurements to describe the sonographic features of the endometrium and intrauterine lesions: a consensus opinion from the International Endometrial Tumor Analysis (IETA) group. Ultrasound Obst Gyn 2010; 35: 103-112 DOI: 10.1002/uog.7487.
- 39 Valentin L. Ultrasound deserves to play a prominent role in the diagnosis and management of endometrial cancer. Ultrasound Obst Gyn 2014; 43: 483-487 DOI: 10.1002/uog.13371.
- 40 Epstein E, Fischerova D, Valentin L. et al. Ultrasound characteristics of endometrial cancer as defined by International Endometrial Tumor Analysis (IETA) consensus nomenclature: prospective multicenter study. Ultrasound Obst Gyn 2018; 51: 818-828 DOI: 10.1002/uog.18909.
- 41 Bosch TVD, Verbakel JY, Valentin L. et al. Typical ultrasound features of various endometrial pathologies described using International Endometrial Tumor Analysis (IETA) terminology in women with abnormal uterine bleeding. Ultrasound Obst Gyn 2021; 57: 164-172 DOI: 10.1002/uog.22109.
- 42 Andreotti RF, Fleischer AC. Practical Applications of 3D Sonography in Gynecologic Imaging. Radiol Clin N Am 2014; 52: 1201-1213 DOI: 10.1016/j.rcl.2014.07.001.
- 43 Epstein E, Fischerova D, Valentin L. et al. Ultrasound characteristics of endometrial cancer as defined by International Endometrial Tumor Analysis (IETA) consensus nomenclature: prospective multicenter study. Ultrasound Obst Gyn 2018; 51: 818-828 DOI: 10.1002/uog.18909.
- 44 Weber G, Merz E, Bahlmann F. et al. Assessment of myometrial infiltration and preoperative staging by transvaginal ultrasound in patients with endometrial carcinoma. Ultrasound Obst Gyn 1995; 6: 362-367 DOI: 10.1046/j.1469-0705.1995.06050362.x.
- 45 Timor-Tritsch IE, Monteagudo A, Tsymbal T. Three‐dimensional ultrasound inversion rendering technique facilitates the diagnosis of hydrosalpinx. J Clin Ultrasound 2010; 38: 372-376 DOI: 10.1002/jcu.20707.
- 46 Chappell CA, Wiesenfeld HC. Pathogenesis, Diagnosis, and Management of Severe Pelvic Inflammatory Disease and Tuboovarian Abscess. Clin Obstet Gynecol 2012; 55: 893-903 DOI: 10.1097/grf.0b013e3182714681.
- 47 Taran FA, Kagan KO, Hübner M. et al. The Diagnosis and Treatment of Ectopic Pregnancy. Deutsches Ärzteblatt international 2015; 112: 693-703-quiz 704–705 DOI: 10.3238/arztebl.2015.0693.
- 48 Kirk E, Bottomley C, Bourne T. Diagnosing ectopic pregnancy and current concepts in the management of pregnancy of unknown location. Human reproduction update 2014; 20: 250-261 DOI: 10.1093/humupd/dmt047.
- 49 Merz E, Weber G, Bahlmann F. et al. A New Sonomorphologic Scoring System (Mainz Score) for the Assessment of Ovarian Tumors Using Transvaginal Ultrasonography – Part I: A Comparison Between the Scoring-System and the Assessment by an Experienced Sonographer. Ultraschall in Med 1998; 19: 99-107 DOI: 10.1055/s-2007-1000471.
- 50 Timmerman D, Valentin L, Bourne TH. et al. Terms, definitions and measurements to describe the sonographic features of adnexal tumors: a consensus opinion from the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis (IOTA) Group. Ultrasound Obst Gyn 2000; 16: 500-505 DOI: 10.1046/j.1469-0705.2000.00287.x.
- 51 Andreotti RF, Timmerman D, Strachowski LM. et al. O-RADS US Risk Stratification and Management System: A Consensus Guideline from the ACR Ovarian-Adnexal Reporting and Data System Committee. Radiology 2019; 294: 191150 DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2019191150.
- 52 Sladkevicius P, Jokubkiene L, Timmerman D. et al. Vessel morphology depicted by three‐dimensional power Doppler ultrasound as second‐stage test in adnexal tumors that are difficult to classify: prospective diagnostic accuracy study. Ultrasound Obst Gyn 2021; 57: 324-334 DOI: 10.1002/uog.22191.
- 53 Ameye L, Timmerman D, Valentin L. et al. Clinically oriented three-step strategy for assessment of adnexal pathology. Ultrasound Obst Gyn 2012; 40: 582-591 DOI: 10.1002/uog.11177.
- 54 Bardin R, Perl N, Mashiach R. et al. Prediction of Adnexal Torsion by Ultrasound in Women with Acute Abdominal Pain. Ultraschall in Med 2019; 41: 688-694 DOI: 10.1055/a-1014-2593.
- 55 Guerriero S, Condous G, den Bosch TV. et al. Systematic approach to sonographic evaluation of the pelvis in women with suspected endometriosis, including terms, definitions and measurements: a consensus opinion from the International Deep Endometriosis Analysis (IDEA) group. Ultrasound Obst Gyn 2016; 48: 318-332 DOI: 10.1002/uog.15955.
- 56 Mattos LA, Goncalves MO, Andres MP. et al. Structured US and MRI imaging report for patients with suspected endometriosis: Guide for Imagers and Clinicians. J Minim Invas Gyn L 2019; 26: 1016-1025 DOI: 10.1016/j.jmig.2019.02.017.
- 57 Ulrich U, Buchweitz O, Greb R. et al. National German Guideline (S2k): Guideline for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Endometriosis*. Geburtsh Frauenheilk 2014; 74: 1104-1118 DOI: 10.1055/s-0034-1383187.