Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41118662›Full record

ArticleUltrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology2026

Imaging in gynecological disease (29): clinical and ultrasound features of primary ovarian immature teratoma.

C Landolfo, W Froyman, A C Testa, D Fischerova, D Franchi, J Yazbek, S Saso, R Fruscio, V Chiappa, A Czekierdowski and 8 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

18 authors.

C LandolfoQueen Charlotte's and Chelsea Hospital, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-9808-7957
W FroymanDepartment of Development and Regeneration, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0002-1398-9124
A C TestaDipartimento Scienze della Salute della Donna, del Bambino e di Sanita' Pubblica, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli IRCCS, Rome, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-2217-8726
D FischerovaGynecologic Oncology Centre, Department of Gynecology, Obstetrics and Neonatology, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General University Hospital in Prague, Prague, Czech Republic.ORCID 0000-0002-7224-3218
D FranchiPreventive Gynecology Unit, Division of Gynecology, European Institute of Oncology, Milan, Italy.
J YazbekQueen Charlotte's and Chelsea Hospital, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK.
S SasoQueen Charlotte's and Chelsea Hospital, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-6310-032X
R FruscioClinic of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Milan-Bicocca, San Gerardo Hospital, Monza, Italy.
V ChiappaDepartment of Gynecologic Oncology, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milan, Italy.
A CzekierdowskiDepartment of Gynecological Oncology and Gynecology, Medical University of Lublin, Lublin, Poland.
T Van GorpDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
F MoroDipartimento Scienze della Salute della Donna, del Bambino e di Sanita' Pubblica, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli IRCCS, Rome, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-5070-7245
L SavelliDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Forli and Faenza Hospitals & University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-0961-7296
G F ZannoniInstitute of Histopathology, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Rome, Italy.
T BourneQueen Charlotte's and Chelsea Hospital, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK.
D TimmermanDepartment of Development and Regeneration, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
L ValentinDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Skåne University Hospital, Malmö, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0002-3830-6414
Collaborators

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo describe the clinical and ultrasound characteristics at the time of diagnosis of primary ovarian immature teratoma with no other germ cell tumor components described on histopathology.

methodsThis was a retrospective study of women with a histological diagnosis of primary ovarian immature teratoma who had undergone a preoperative ultrasound examination between 1998 and 2024. Cases were identified from the databases of 17 contributing ultrasound centers and the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis (IOTA) database. The descriptions of the ultrasound images of the tumors made by the original ultrasound examiners using IOTA terminology were reported. In addition, grayscale and color or power Doppler ultrasound images or videoclips were retrieved for all tumors. Two independent ultrasound examiners reviewed the retrieved material and searched for specific ultrasound characteristics of immature teratomas using pattern recognition. We present their agreed description of the tumors.

resultsIn total, 64 patients with ovarian immature teratoma were included, of which 38 (59.4%) were obtained from the IOTA database (IOTA studies phase 1, 1b, 2, 3, 5 and 7). The median age of the patients at diagnosis was 24.5 (interquartile range (IQR), 18.8-31.0; range, 12-50) years. The most common presenting symptoms were abdominal or pelvic pain (38/60, 63.3%) and abdominal swelling (30/60, 50.0%). All immature teratomas were unilateral. The median largest diameter of the tumor was 149.5 (IQR, 125.0-183.8; range, 27-400) mm. Using IOTA terminology, most tumors were described as multilocular-solid (32/64, 50.0%) or solid lesions (22/64, 34.4%). When present, the solid component had a median largest diameter of 98.5 (IQR, 59.8-146.8; range 6-400) mm. Most masses showed minimal (19/63, 30.2%) or moderate (35/63, 55.6%) vascularization on color or power Doppler ultrasound examination. Using pattern recognition, the most typical ultrasound feature was heterogeneous, bizarre echogenicity of the solid components, with hyperechogenic areas, cystic spaces and acoustic shadows. This feature, which we consider pathognomonic, was present in 48/57 (84.2%) immature teratomas in which the solid components were adequately assessable.

conclusionsThe typical ultrasound appearance of an ovarian immature teratoma is a large unilateral adnexal mass with large solid components that is poorly or moderately vascularized. The pathognomonic feature is heterogeneous echogenicity of the solid components with hyperechogenic areas, cystic spaces and acoustic shadows. Preoperative suspicion of immature teratoma can guide treatment, such as offering fertility-sparing surgery. © 2025 The Author(s). Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

Indexed as

Ovarian NeoplasmsTeratomaAdolescentAdultFemaleHumansOvaryRetrospective StudiesUltrasonographyUltrasonography, Doppler, ColorYoung Adultovarian immature teratomaovarian neoplasmultrasonography

Identifiers

PMID41118662
PMCPMC12757824

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.