Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42576475›Full record

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

Diagnostic imaging of adnexal lesions in pregnancy: systematic review.

N Cooper, N Kotecha, A Novak, J Barcroft, J Yazbek, C Landolfo, M Al-Memar, D Timmerman, S Saso, T Bourne

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis 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. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

10 authors.

N CooperWest London Cancer Centre, Queen Charlotte's and Chelsea Hospital, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK.
N KotechaWest London Cancer Centre, Queen Charlotte's and Chelsea Hospital, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4827-7212
A NovakWest London Cancer Centre, Queen Charlotte's and Chelsea Hospital, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK.
J BarcroftWest London Cancer Centre, Queen Charlotte's and Chelsea Hospital, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5258-312X
J YazbekWest London Cancer Centre, Queen Charlotte's and Chelsea Hospital, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK.
C LandolfoWest London Cancer Centre, Queen Charlotte's and Chelsea Hospital, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK.
M Al-MemarWest London Cancer Centre, Queen Charlotte's and Chelsea Hospital, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK.
D TimmermanInstitute for Reproductive and Developmental Biology, Imperial College London, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3707-6645
S SasoWest London Cancer Centre, Queen Charlotte's and Chelsea Hospital, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK.
T BourneWest London Cancer Centre, Queen Charlotte's and Chelsea Hospital, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1421-6059

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo describe the imaging features of adnexal lesions during pregnancy and assess the performance of current models for the risk assessment of such lesions.

methodsThis was a PROSPERO-registered systematic review including studies published from inception to 1 August 2025 and was performed as per Preferred Reporting Systems for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidance using Covidence software. Studies were included if they utilized an objective or standardized assessment of imaging features (based on the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis (IOTA) terms and definitions, or predefined categorical variables), expert description or quantitative data (such as lesion measurements and number of papillary projections) to assess the risk of adnexal lesions during pregnancy. Standardized extraction of imaging features was performed and classification of outcomes was based on histology, resolution or expert impression. Diagnostic model performance was also extracted. Meta-analysis of model performance was not performed owing to study heterogeneity.

resultsOverall, 3349 studies were screened, of which 40 underwent full-text review and 16 were included in the systematic review, comprising 1674 patients and 1660 adnexal lesions. Most included studies were retrospective and ultrasound-based. Excluding six studies that exclusively reported benign lesions, 93.1% (1284/1379) of patients had benign lesions, 3.4% (47/1379) had borderline ovarian tumors (BOTs) and 3.5% (48/1379) had malignant lesions. Excluding studies reporting exclusively on endometrioma, the most common benign adnexal lesions were simple cysts (39.0% (393/1007)), mature cystic teratomas (24.2% (244/1007)) and endometriomas (14.9% (150/1007)). Malignant lesions were most often epithelial ovarian cancer or metastases. Both BOTs and malignant lesions retained imaging characteristics comparable with those observed in non-pregnant women. Decidualization was present in 11.8-39.5% of reported endometriomas. While decidualized endometriomas (DEs) and BOTs typically share characteristics, experts noted distinguishing morphological features and behaviors. BOTs were larger (median, 88.0 mm vs 48.1 mm), and although both were predominantly unilocular-solid lesions, BOTs were relatively more often multilocular-solid (30.0% vs 22.4%) compared with DEs. Both showed high vascularity, with most cases having a color score of 3. Most DEs (83.9%) had one to three papillary projections, whereas most BOTs (66.7%) had more than three papillary projections. Diagnostic models, such as the IOTA two-step strategy and the Assessment of Different NEoplasias in the adneXa model alone, showed high specificity (70.0-90.2%) and negative predictive value (90.0-98.3%), but performance was limited by misclassification of DEs as malignant.

conclusionsUltrasound can reliably assess adnexal lesions in pregnancy. DEs and BOTs can appear similar owing to their morphological overlap. Both BOTs and malignant lesions in pregnancy show morphology comparable with that in non-pregnant women, and IOTA models maintain a high negative predictive value for excluding malignancy in such cases. Future research should refine diagnostic tools to improve the differentiation of benign from malignant cysts with solid components. © 2026 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

Adnexal DiseasesPregnancy Complications, NeoplasticFemaleHumansOvarian NeoplasmsPregnancyRisk AssessmentUltrasonographydiagnostic imagingmagnetic resonance imagingneoplasticovarian cystsovarian neoplasmspredictive value of testspregnancyrisk assessmentultrasonography

Identifiers

PMID42576475
PMCPMC13641726

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.