Objective To assess the prevalence of sonographic signs in women with uterine sarcoma.Materials and Methods A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed. Five electronic databases were searched from inception to June 2022 for all studies allowing calculation of the prevalence of sonographic signs in women with uterine sarcoma. Pooled prevalence with 95 % confidence intervals was calculated for each sonographic sign and was a priori defined as " very high" when it was >= 80 %, " high" when it ranged from 80 % to 70 %, and less relevant when it was <= 70 %.Results 6 studies with 317 sarcoma patients were included.The pooled prevalence was:center dot 25.0 % (95 % CI:15.4-37.9 %) for absence of visibility of the myometriumcenter dot 80.5 % (95 % CI:74.8-85.2 %) for solid componentcenter dot 78.3 % (95 % CI:59.3-89.9 %) for inhomogeneous echogenicity of solid componentcenter dot 47.9 % (95 % CI:41.1-54.8 %) for cystic areascenter dot 80.7 % (95 % CI:68.3-89.0 %) for irregular walls of cystic areascenter dot 72.3 % (95 % CI:16.7-97.2 %) for anechoic cystic areascenter dot 54.8 % (95 % CI:34.0-74.1 %) for absence of shadowingcenter dot 73.5 % (95 % CI:43.3-90.9 %) for absence of calcificationscenter dot 48.7 % (95 % CI:18.6-79.8 %) for color score 3 or 4center dot 47.3 % (95 % CI:37.0-57.8 %) for irregular tumor borderscenter dot 45.4 % (95 % CI:27.6-64.3 %) for endometrial cavity not visualizablecenter dot 10.9 % (95 % CI:3.5-29.1 %) for free pelvic fluidcenter dot 6.4 % (95 %CI:1.1-30.2 %) for ascitescenter dot 21.2 % (95 % CI:2.1-76.8 %) for intracavitary processcenter dot 81.5 % (95 % CI:56.1-93.8 %) for singular lesion.Conclusion Solid component, irregular walls of cystic areas, and singular lesions are signs with very high prevalence, while inhomogeneous echogenicity of solid component, anechoic cystic areas, and absence of calcifications are signs with high prevalence. The remaining signs were less relevant.

Prevalence of sonographic signs in women with uterine sarcoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Travaglino, Antonio;
2023-01-01

Abstract

Objective To assess the prevalence of sonographic signs in women with uterine sarcoma.Materials and Methods A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed. Five electronic databases were searched from inception to June 2022 for all studies allowing calculation of the prevalence of sonographic signs in women with uterine sarcoma. Pooled prevalence with 95 % confidence intervals was calculated for each sonographic sign and was a priori defined as " very high" when it was >= 80 %, " high" when it ranged from 80 % to 70 %, and less relevant when it was <= 70 %.Results 6 studies with 317 sarcoma patients were included.The pooled prevalence was:center dot 25.0 % (95 % CI:15.4-37.9 %) for absence of visibility of the myometriumcenter dot 80.5 % (95 % CI:74.8-85.2 %) for solid componentcenter dot 78.3 % (95 % CI:59.3-89.9 %) for inhomogeneous echogenicity of solid componentcenter dot 47.9 % (95 % CI:41.1-54.8 %) for cystic areascenter dot 80.7 % (95 % CI:68.3-89.0 %) for irregular walls of cystic areascenter dot 72.3 % (95 % CI:16.7-97.2 %) for anechoic cystic areascenter dot 54.8 % (95 % CI:34.0-74.1 %) for absence of shadowingcenter dot 73.5 % (95 % CI:43.3-90.9 %) for absence of calcificationscenter dot 48.7 % (95 % CI:18.6-79.8 %) for color score 3 or 4center dot 47.3 % (95 % CI:37.0-57.8 %) for irregular tumor borderscenter dot 45.4 % (95 % CI:27.6-64.3 %) for endometrial cavity not visualizablecenter dot 10.9 % (95 % CI:3.5-29.1 %) for free pelvic fluidcenter dot 6.4 % (95 %CI:1.1-30.2 %) for ascitescenter dot 21.2 % (95 % CI:2.1-76.8 %) for intracavitary processcenter dot 81.5 % (95 % CI:56.1-93.8 %) for singular lesion.Conclusion Solid component, irregular walls of cystic areas, and singular lesions are signs with very high prevalence, while inhomogeneous echogenicity of solid component, anechoic cystic areas, and absence of calcifications are signs with high prevalence. The remaining signs were less relevant.
2023
malignancy; myomata; leiomyosarcoma; prediction; preoperative assessment
Raffone, Antonio; Raimondo, Diego; Neola, Daniele; Travaglino, Antonio; Doglioli, Marisol; Ambrosio, Marco; Raimondo, Ivano; De Meis, Lucia; Turco, Luigi Carlo; Cosentino, Francesco; Seracchioli, Renato; Casadio, Paolo; Mollo, Antonio
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11383/2167648
 Attenzione

Attenzione! I dati visualizzati non sono stati sottoposti a validazione da parte dell'ateneo

Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 0
  • Scopus 1
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 1
social impact