About
The Journal "Obstetrics and Gynecology"Journal HistoryAims and ScopePolicies on Conflict of Interest, Human and Animal Rights, and Informed ConsentEditorial ProcessData sharing statementAdvertising PolicyThe Process for Handling Cases Requiring Corrections, Retractions, and Editorial Expressions of ConcernEditorial BoardEditorial CounsilInformation for ProfessionalsNewsContacts
ArchiveEthical StandardsSubscription
For authors
InstructionsInformed consent policyContract offerEASE GuidelinesICJME CriteriaWAME Recommendations on ChatGPT and Chatbots in Relation to Scholarly Publications
Reviewing
Procedure for reviewingReviewers 2023-2024
About
The Journal "Obstetrics and Gynecology"Journal HistoryAims and ScopePolicies on Conflict of Interest, Human and Animal Rights, and Informed ConsentEditorial ProcessData sharing statementAdvertising PolicyThe Process for Handling Cases Requiring Corrections, Retractions, and Editorial Expressions of ConcernEditorial BoardEditorial CounsilInformation for ProfessionalsNewsContacts
ArchiveEthical StandardsSubscription
For authors
InstructionsInformed consent policyContract offerEASE GuidelinesICJME CriteriaWAME Recommendations on ChatGPT and Chatbots in Relation to Scholarly Publications
Reviewing
Procedure for reviewingReviewers 2023-2024
Logout
Obstetrics and Gynegology2025№2
Current trends in the early...

Current trends in the early diagnosis of ovarian cancer

DOI
https://dx.doi.org/10.18565/aig.2024.273

Antonova I.B., Akopyan E.G., Aleshikova O.I., Tsallagova Z.S., Slonov A.V., Ashrafyan L.A.

1) Russian Scientific Center of Roentgen Radiology, Ministry of Health of Russia, Moscow, Russia; 2) Academician V.I. Kulakov National Medical Research Centre for Obstetrics, Gynecology and Perinatology, Ministry of Health of Russia, Moscow, Russia; 3) Clinical Hospital No. 123 of Lopukhin Federal Research and Clinical Centre for Physical and Chemical Medicine of Federal Medical and Biological Agency, Odintsovo, Russia; 4) MEDSI Group JSC, Moscow, Russia

Background: Despite the numerous proposed models and diagnostic algorithms, early diagnosis of ovarian cancer remains a significant challenge in modern gynecologic oncology. Solutions to this problem include the improvement of diagnostic equipment, the introduction of novel prognostic models and the use of advanced ultrasound imaging techniques.
Objective: To analyze the results of ultrasound models used in the detection of ovarian cancer in different age groups and in the implementation of screening in various risk groups, in order to create an optimal comprehensive algorithm for the early diagnosis of ovarian cancer at the primary diagnostic stage.
Materials and methods: A total of 50 publications were selected from 186 publications, including meta-analyses, reviews, and articles using PubMed.
Results: The present study investigated and compared the use of modern ultrasound models and ultrasound imaging techniques in the diagnosis of ovarian masses in different age cohorts and risk groups for the development of ovarian cancer.
Conclusion: Despite the use of new modern ultrasound models, the challenge of early diagnosis of ovarian cancer persists and makes it necessary to create a new complex algorithm with the use of additional clinical and ultrasound diagnostic methods.

Authors’ contributions: Antonova I.B. – developing the concept of the review; Aleshikova O.I. – collecting scientific material and its analysis; Akopyan E.G. – working with various sources, writing the text; Slonov A.V. – analysis of the material, writing the text, editing the article; Tsallagova Z.S. – writing the text, preparing the manuscript for publication; Ashrafyan L.A. – editing the article, approving the final version of the article.
Conflicts of interest: Authors declare lack of the possible conflicts of interest.
Funding: The study was conducted without sponsorship.
For citation: Antonova I.B., Akopyan E.G., Aleshikova O.I., Tsallagova Z.S., Slonov A.V., Ashrafyan L.A. Current trends in the early diagnosis of ovarian cancer.
Akusherstvo i Ginekologiya/Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2025; (2): 24-30 (in Russian)
https://dx.doi.org/10.18565/aig.2024.273

Keywords

ovarian cancer
ultrasound
early diagnosis
prognostic models
Full text (in Russian)

References

  1. Arora T., Mullangi S., Vadakekut E.S., Lekkala M.R. Epithelial ovarian cancer. 2024. In: StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2025.
  2. World Ovarian Cancer Coalition. Ovarian cancer data briefing. 2024. Available at: https://worldovariancancercoalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/2024-Global-Priority.pdf
  3. Menon U., Gentry-Maharaj A., Burnell M., Singh N., Ryan A., Karpinskyj C. et al. Ovarian cancer population screening and mortality after long-term follow-up in the UK Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening (UKCTOCS): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2021; 397(10290): 2182-93. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(21)00731-5.
  4. Каприн А.Д., Старинский В.В., Шахзадова А.О., ред. Состояние онкологической помощи населению России в 2022 году. М.: МНИОИ им. П.А. Герцена - филиал ФГБУ «НМИЦ радиологии» Минздрава России; 2022. 239с. [Kaprin A.D., Starinsky V.V., Shakhzadova A.O., eds. State of oncological care for the population of Russia in 2022. Moscow: P.A. Herzen MRОI - branch of the NMRC of Radiology of the Ministry of Health of Russia; 2022. 239p. (in Russian)].
  5. IOTA. Simple rules and SRrisk calculator to diagnose ovarian cancer. Available at: https://www.iotagroup.org/research/iota-models-software/iota-simple-rules-and-srrisk-calculator-diagnose-ovarian-cancer (Accessed on 27 October 2022).
  6. Meys E.M., Kaijser J., Kruitwagen R.F., Slangen B.F., Van Calster B., Aertgeerts B. et al. Subjective assessment versus ultrasound models to diagnose ovarian cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur. J. Cancer. 2016; 58: 17-29. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2016.01.007.
  7. Czekierdowski A., Stachowicz N., Smolen A., Łoziński T., Guzik P., Kluz T. Performance of IOTA simple rules risks, ADNEX model, subjective assessment compared to CA125 and HE4 with ROMA algorithm in discriminating between benign, borderline and stage I malignant adnexal lesions. Diagnostics (Basel). 2023; 13(5): 885. https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics13050885.
  8. Fischerova D., Cibula D. Ultrasound in gynecological cancer: is it time for re-evaluation of its uses? Curr. Oncol. Rep. 2015; 17(6): 28. https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11912-015-0449-x.
  9. Levine D., Patel M.D., Suh-Burgmann E.J., Andreotti R.F., Benacerraf B.R., Benson C.B. et al. Simple adnexal cysts: SRU consensus conference update on follow-up and reporting. Radiology. 2019; 293(2): 359-71. https://dx.doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2019191354.
  10. Timmerman D., Valentin L., Bourne T.H., Collins W.P., Verrelst H., Vergote I.; International Ovarian Tumor Analysis (IOTA) Group. Terms, definitions and measurements to describe the sonographic features of adnexal tumors: a consensus opinion from the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis (IOTA) Group. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 2000; 16(5): 500-5. https://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1469-0705.2000.00287.x.
  11. Гатауллин И.Г., Савинова А.Р. Анализ прогностических и предиктивных моделей по раку яичников. Поволжский онкологический вестник. 2021; 12(3). Доступно по: https://oncovestnik.ru/archive/2021/2021-3/analiz-prognosticheskih-i-prediktivnyh-modelej-po-raku-yaichnikov/ [Gataullin I.G., Savinova A.R. Analysis of prognostic and predictive models for ovarian cancer. Oncology Bulletin of the Volga Region. 2021; 12(3). (in Russian)]. Available at: https://oncovestnik.ru/archive/2021/2021-3/analiz-prognosticheskih-i-prediktivnyh-modelej-po-raku-yaichnikov/
  12. Jacobs I., Oram D., Fairbanks J., Turner J., Frost C., Grudzinskas J.G. A risk of malignancy index incorporating CA 125, ultrasound and menopausal status for the accurate preoperative diagnosis of ovarian cancer. Br. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. 1990; 97(10): 922-9. https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0528.1990.tb02448.x.
  13. Davenport C.F., Rai N., Sharma P., Deeks J., Berhane S., Mallett S. et al. Diagnostic models combining clinical information, ultrasound and biochemical markers for ovarian cancer: Cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis. Cancers (Basel). 2022; 14(15): 3621. https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/cancers14153621.
  14. Huwidi A., Abobrege A., Assidi M., Buhmeida A., Ermiah E. Diagnostic value of risk of malignancy index in the clinical evaluation of ovarian mass. Mol. Clin. Oncol. 2022; 17(1): 118. https://dx.doi.org/10.3892/mco.2022.2551.
  15. Ашрафян Л.А., Бабаева Н.А., Антонова И.Б., Ивашина С.В., Люстик А.В., Алешикова O.И., Герфанова Е.В., Добренко А.А. Ультразвуковые критерии ранней диагностики рака яичников. Опухоли женской репродуктивной системы. 2015; 11(1): 53-60. [Ashrafyan L.A., Babaeva N.A., Antonova I.B., Ivashina S.V., Lyustik A.V., Aleshikova O.I., Gerfanova E.V., Dobrenko А.А. Ultrasound criteria of early diagnostics of ovarian carcinoma. Tumors of Female Reproductive System. 2015; 11(1): 53-60. (in Russian)]. https://dx.doi.org/10.17650/1994-4098-2015-1-53-60.
  16. Timmerman D., Testa A.C., Bourne T., Ameye L., Jurkovic D., Van Holsbeke C. et al. Simple ultrasound-based rules for the diagnosis of ovarian cancer. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 2008; 31(6): 681-90. https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/uog.5365.
  17. Divya K.P., Prabhu S., Satish Prasad B.S. Validity of international ovarian tumour analysis simple rules in characterization of ovarian mass. Int. J. Reprod. Contracept. Obstet. Gynecol. 2023; 12(7): 2128-32. https://dx.doi.org/10.18203/2320-1770.ijrcog20231922.
  18. Timmerman D., Van Calster B., Testa A., Savelli L., Fischerova D., Froyman W. et al. Predicting the risk of malignancy in adnexal masses based on the Simple Rules from the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis group. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 2016; 214(4): 424-37. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2016.01.007.
  19. Moore R.G., Brown A.K., Miller M.C., Skates S., Allard W.J., Verch T. et al. The use of multiple novel tumour biomarkers for the detection of ovarian carcinoma in patients with a pelvic mass. Gynecol. Oncol. 2008; 108(2): 402-8. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2007.10.017.
  20. Suri A., Perumal V., Ammalli P., Suryan V., Bansal S.K. Diagnostic measures comparison for ovarian malignancy risk in epithelial ovarian cancer patients: a meta-analysis. Sci. Rep. 2021; 11(1): 17308. https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-96552-9.
  21. Bryce C. Risk of Ovarian Malignancy Algorithm (ROMA) for assessing likelihood of ovarian cancer. Am. Fam. Physician. 2023; 107(3): 303-4.
  22. Wang H., Liu P., Xu H., Dai H. Early diagonosis of ovarian cancer: serum HE4, CA125 and ROMA model. Am. J. Transl. Res. 2021; 13(12): 14141-8.
  23. Yang S., Tang J., Rong Y., Wang M., Long J., Chen C. Performance of the IOTA ADNEX model combined with HE4 for identifying early-stage ovarian cancer. Front. Oncol. 2022; 12: 949766. https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2022.949766.
  24. Huang X., Wang Z., Zhang M., Luo H. Diagnostic accuracy of the ADNEX model for ovarian cancer at the 15% cut-off value: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Front. Oncol. 2021; 11: 684257. https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2021.684257.
  25. Cherukuri S., Jajoo S., Dewani D. The International Ovarian Tumor Analysis-Assessment of Different Neoplasias in the Adnexa (IOTA-ADNEX) Model Assessment for risk of ovarian malignancy in adnexal masses. Cureus. 2022; 14(11): e31194. https://dx.doi.org/10.7759/cureus.31194.
  26. Timmerman D., Van Calster B., Testa A.C., Guerriero S., Fischerova D., Lissoni A.A. et al. Ovarian cancer prediction in adnexal masses using ultrasound-based logistic regression models: a temporal and external validation study by the IOTA group. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 2010; 36(2): 226-34. https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/uog.7636.
  27. Nunes N., Ambler G., Foo X., Widschwendter M., Jurkovic D. Prospective evaluation of IOTA logistic regression models LR1 and LR2 in comparison with subjective pattern recognition for diagnosis of ovarian cancer in an outpatient setting. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 2018; 51(6): 829-35. https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/uog.18918.
  28. Amor F., Alcázar J.L., Vaccaro H., León M., Iturra A. GI-RADS reporting system for ultrasound evaluation of adnexal masses in clinical practice: a prospective multicenter study. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 2011; 38(4): 450-5. https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/uog.9012.
  29. Alcázar J.L., Rodriguez-Guzman L., Vara J., Amor F., Diaz L., Vaccaro H. Gynecologic imaging and reporting data system for classifying adnexal masses. Minerva Obstet. Gynecol. 2023; 75: 69-79. https://dx.doi.org/10.23736/S2724-606X.22.05122-3.
  30. Timmerman D., Testa A.C., Bourne T., Ferrazzi E., Ameye L., Konstantinovic M.L.; International Ovarian Tumor Analysis Group. Logistic regression model to distinguish between the benign and malignant adnexal mass before surgery: a multicenter study by the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis Group. J. Clin. Oncol. 2005; 23(34): 8794-801. https://dx.doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2005.01.7632.
  31. Vara J., Manzour N., Chacón E., López-Picazo A., Linares M., Pascual M.Á. Ovarian Adnexal Reporting Data System (O-RADS) for classifying adnexal masses: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Cancers (Basel). 2022; 14(13): 3151. https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/cancers14133151.
  32. Li Y., Shao G., Wu M., Zhang F., Zhang Y., Shao C. Evaluation of American College of Radiology Ovarian-Adnexal Reporting and Data System ultrasound to predict malignancy risk in adnexal lesions. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. Res. 2024; 50(2): 225-32. https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jog.15831.
  33. Vilendecic Z., Radojevic M., Stefanovic K., Dotlic J., Likic Ladjevic I., Dugalic S. Accuracy of IOTA simple rules, IOTA ADNEX model, RMI, and subjective assessment for preoperative adnexal mass evaluation: the experience of a tertiary care referral hospital. Gynecol. Obstet. Invest. 2023; 88(2): 116-22. https://dx.doi.org/10.1159/000529355.
  34. Salvador S., Scott S., Glanc P., Eiriksson L., Jang J.H., Sebastianelli A. et al. Guideline No. 403: initial investigation and management of adnexal masses. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. Can. 2020; 42(8): 1021.e1-1029.e3. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jogc.2019.08.044.
  35. Van Calster B., Valentin L., Froyman W., Landolfo C., Ceusters J., Testa A.C. et al. Validation of models to diagnose ovarian cancer in patients managed surgically or conservatively: multicentre cohort study. BMJ. 2020; 370: m2614. https://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.m2614.
  36. Carreras-Dieguez N., Glickman A., Munmany M., Casanovas G., Agustí N., Díaz-Feijoo B. et al. Comparison of HE4, CA125, ROMA and CPH-I for preoperative assessment of adnexal tumors. Diagnostics (Basel). 2022; 12(1): 226. https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics12010226.
  37. Filiz A.A., Kahyaoglu S., Atalay C.R. Comparison of International Ovarian Tumor Analysis ADNEX model and Ovarian-Adnexal Reporting and Data System with final histological diagnosis in adnexal masses: a retrospective study. Obstet. Gynecol. Sci. 2024; 67(1): 86-93. https://dx.doi.org/10.5468/ogs.23061.
  38. Jacobs I.J., Menon U., Ryan A., Gentry-Maharaj A., Burnell M., Kalsi J.K. et al. Ovarian cancer screening and mortality in the UK Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening (UKCTOCS): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2016; 387(10022): 945-56. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(15)01224-6.
  39. Han C.Y., Lu K.H., Corrigan G., Perez A., Kohring S.D., Celestino J. et al. Normal risk ovarian screening study: 21-year update. J. Clin. Oncol. 2024; 42(10):1102-9. https://dx.doi.org/10.1200/JCO.23.00141.
  40. Pavlik Е.J., van Nagell J.R. Jr., Dietrich C.S. 3rd, Ueland F.R. Compelling story of ovarian cancer screening. J. Clin. Oncol. 2024; 42(10): 1091-4. https://dx.doi.org/10.1200/JCO.23.02424.
  41. Moro F., Esposito R., Landolfo C., Froyman W., Timmerman D., Bourne T. et al. Ultrasound evaluation of ovarian masses and assessment of the extension of ovarian malignancy. Br. J. Radiol. 2021; 94(1125): 20201375. https://dx.doi.org/10.1259/bjr.20201375.
  42. Luis Alcázar J., Ramón Pérez-Vidal J., Tameish S., Chacón E., Manzour N., Ángel Mínguez J. Ultrasound for assessing tumor spread in ovarian cancer. A systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis. Eur. J. Obstet. Gynecol. Reprod. Biol. 2024; 292: 194-200. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2023.11.017.
  43. Gorski J.W., Dietrich C.S. 3rd, Davis C., Erol L., Dietrich H., Per N.J. et al. Significance of pelvic fluid observed during ovarian cancer screening with transvaginal sonogram. Diagnostics (Basel). 2022; 12(1): 144. https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics12010144.
  44. Guerriero S., Alcazar J.L., Pascual M.A., Ajossa S., Olartecoechea B., Hereter L. Preoperative diagnosis of metastatic ovarian cancer is related to origin of primary tumor. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 2012; 39(5): 581-6. https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/uog.10120.
  45. Xun L., Zhai L., Xu H. Comparison of conventional, doppler and contrast-enhanced ultrasonography in differential diagnosis of ovarian masses: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ Open. 2021; 11(12): e052830. https://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2021-052830.
  46. Sehgal N. Efficacy of color doppler ultrasonography in differentiation of ovarian masses. J. Midlife Health. 2019; 10(1): 22-8. https://dx.doi.org/10.4103/jmh.JMH_23_18.
  47. Mahale N., Kumar N., Mahale A., Ullal S., Fernandes M., Prabhu S. Validity of ultrasound with color Doppler to differentiate between benign and malignant ovarian tumours. Obstet. Gynecol. Sci. 2024; 67(2): 227-34. https://dx.doi.org/10.5468/ogs.23072.
  48. Harb H., Husseiny A., Salama M., Elshawarby H. Pre-operative evaluation of color doppler ultrasonography to predict malignancy in ovarian masses at Ain-Shams University. QJM. 2023; 116(Supplement_1): hcad069.549. https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/qjmed/hcad069.549.
  49. Sánchez E., Verdú A., Carbonell A., Alcazar J.L. The role of three-dimensional power doppler for detecting ovarian cancer in adnexal masses: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Oncol. Adv. 2024; 2(1): 18-28. https://dx.doi.org/10.14218/OnA.2023.00034.
  50. Liu Y., Zhang Q., Zhang F., Liu M., Zhang J., Cao X. Is three-dimensional ultrasonography a valuable diagnostic tool for patients with ovarian cancer? Systematic review and meta-analysis. Front. Oncol. 2024; 14: 1404426. https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2024.1404426.

Received 30.10.2024

Accepted 30.01.2025

About the Authors

Irina B. Antonova, Dr. Med. Sci., Head of the Laboratory of Comprehensive Diagnostics and Treatment of Diseases of the Urogenital and Reproductive Systems in Adults and Children, Russian Scientific Center of Roentgenology and Radiology, Ministry of Health of Russia, 117485, Russia, Moscow, Profsoyuznaya str., 86, Iran24@yandex.ru,
SPIN-code: 6247-3917; AuthorID: 698034, https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2668-2110
Elena G. Akopyan, ultrasound diagnostics doctor, Department of Ultrasound Diagnostics, Clinical and Diagnostic Center «MEDSI» on Belorusskaya, JSC «MEDSI Group of Companies», 123056, Russia, Moscow, Gruzinskiy per., 3A, lenart28@mail.ru, https://orcid.org/0009-0009-2394-6038
Zemfira S. Tsallagova, Dr. Med. Sci., Professor, Scientific Secretary, Russian Scientific Center of Roentgenology and Radiology, Ministry of Health of Russia,
117485, Russia, Moscow, Profsoyuznaya str., 86, +7(495)334-91-93, zscallagova@rncrr.ru, SPIN-code: 2242-2327, AuthorID: 468919, https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3199-0804
Olga I. Aleshikova, PhD, Senior Researcher at the Institute of Oncogynecology and Mammology, Academician V.I. Kulakov National Medical Research Center of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Perinatology, Ministry of Health of Russia, 117997, Russia, Moscow, Ac. Oparin str., 4, olga.aleshikova@gmail.com, https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2957-3940
Andrey V. Slonov, PhD, Chief Physician, Clinical Hospital No.123 of Lopukhin Federal Research and Clinical Center of Physical-Chemical Medicine of FMBA of Russia,
143007, Russia, Moscow Region, Odintsovo, Krasnogorskoye Shosse, 15, drslon83@gmail.com, https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4416-7315
Levon A. Ashrafyan, Academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Dr. Med. Sci., Professor, Director of the Institute of Oncogynecology and Mammology,
Academician V.I. Kulakov National Medical Research Center for Obstetrics, Gynecology and Perinatology, Ministry of Health of Russia, 117997, Russia, Moscow,
Ac. Oparina str., 4, SPIN-code: 4870-1626, AuthorID: 265252, https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6396-4948
Corresponding author: Elena G. Akopyan, lenart28@mail.ru

Similar Articles

№3 / 2020
Sencha A.N., Kondratovich L.M., Bykov A.G., Adamyan L.V.
Ultrasound elastography in the diagnosis of adenomyosis
№10 / 2020
Ozerskaya I.A., Ivanov V.A., Porkhovaty S.Ya., Kazaryan G.G.
Characteristics of uterine blood supply in women with chronic endometritis depending on the duration of infertility
№1 / 2020
Gorodnova T.V., Sokolenko A.P., Kotiv Kh.B., Yakovleva M.G., Lavrinovich O.E., Mikaya N.A., Ibragimov Z.N., Trifanov Yu.N., Bondarev N.E., Nekrasova E.A., Sidoruk A.A., Smirnova O.A., Guseinov K.D., Bakhidze E.V., Meshkova I.E., Bakaeva E.Kh., Shikhzadaeva M.G., Ul’rikh E.A., Urmancheeva A.F., Berlev I.V., Imyanitov E.N., Belyaev A.M.
Prophylactic surgery in carriers of BRCA1 or BRCA2 gene mutation
№6 / 2022
Bunyaeva E.S., Kirillova A.O., Nazarenko T.A., Dzhanashvili L.G., Gadzhimagomedova K.K., Khabas G.N., Biryukova A.M., Gavisova A.A.
Indications and effectiveness of technique for immature oocyte-cumulus complexes retrieval from ovarian tissue followed by their in vitro maturation
№5 / 2024
Ivanova L.B., Chekalova M.A., Davydova I.Yu., Valiev R.K., Saryev M.N., Kryazheva V.S., Olimov B.P.
Smooth muscle tumors of the uterus: possibilities of preoperative diagnosis using imaging techniques
By continuing to use our site, you consent to the processing of cookies that ensure the proper functioning of the site.