Current trends in screening and differential diagnosis of epithelial ovarian tumors

Nosova Yu.V., Solopova A.E., Khabas G.N.

Academician V.I. Kulakov National Medical Research Center of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Perinatology, Ministry of Health of Russia, Moscow, Russia
The review analyzes the data of modern literature on screening and early and differential diagnosis of epithelial ovarian tumors in the past decade, which are available in relevant databases: Scopus (selections of leading scientific monographs), PubMed, eLibrary (with an expanded access to full-text resources), and the resources of NCCN, ECR, ESUR, and ACR. It summarizes and analyzes the experience of modern medicine and the leading world centers dealing with the problems of combating epithelial ovarian tumors, presents promising studies of screening events, novel diagnostic approaches, and also demonstrates the role of genetic counseling for people at high cancer risk. To solve the currently existing problems associated with the development of effective screening programs and to improve diagnostic methods at all stages of medical examination and treatment are one of the most significant areas in the development of gynecological oncology.


ovarian cancer
epithelial ovarian tumors
risk stratification


  1. Management of Suspected Ovarian Masses in Premenopausal Women (Green-top Guideline N 62) [Electronic resource]: RCOG/BSGE Joint Guideline /British Society of Gynecological Endoscopy (BSGE). London: RCOG, 2011. URL:
  2. Graham L. ACOG Releases Guidelines on Management of Adnexal Masses. Am Fam Physician. 2008; 77(9): 1320-3.
  3. Гаспаров А.С., Жорданиа К.И., Паяниди Ю.Г., Дубинская Е.Д. Онкогинекологические аспекты кистозных образований яичников. Вестник Российской академии медицинских наук. 2013; 8 (68): 9-13. [Gasparov A.S., Zhordania K.I., Payanidi Y.G., Dubinskaya E.D. Oncogynecologycal aspects of adnexal masses. Annals of the Russian Academy of Medical Sciences. 2013; 68(8): 9-13. (InRussian)]
  4. Walker J., Powell B., Chen L., et al. Society of Gynecologic Oncology recommendations for the prevention of ovarian cancer. Cancer. 2015; 121: 2108-2120.
  5. Webb P., Green A., Jordan S. Trends in hormone use and ovarian cancer incidence in US white and Australian women: implications for the future. Cancer Causes Control. 2017; 28: 365-370.
  6. National Cancer Institute. Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program. Cancer stat facts: ovarian cancer. Available at: html/ovary.html. (Accessed 30 December 2018).
  7. Jayson G.C., Kohn E.C., Kitchener H.C., Ledermann J.A. Ovarian cancer. Lancet. 2014; 384: 1376-1388.
  8. Chien J., Poole E. Ovarian cancer prevention, screening and early detection: report from the 11th Biennial Ovarian Cancer Research Symposium. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2018; 27: S20-S22.
  9. Institute of Medicine, Committee on the State of the Science in Ovarian Cancer Research, Board on Health Care Services, et al. Ovarian Cancers: Evolving Paradigms in Research and Care. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 2016. PMID: 27253000.
  10. Permuth-Wey J., Besharat A., Sellers T. Epidemiology of ovarian cancer: An update. In: Advances in diagnosis and management of ovarian cancer. Farghaly S.A., ed. New York: Springer Science and Business Media; 2014. PMID: None.
  11. Wentzensen N., Poole E.M., Trabert B., et al. Ovarian Cancer Risk Factors by Histologic Subtype: An Analysis From the Ovarian Cancer Cohort Consortium. J Clin Oncol. 2016; 34(24): 2888-98. PMID: 27325851.
  12. Song H., Ramus S.J., Tyrer J., et al. A genome-wide association study identifies a new ovarian cancer susceptibility locus on 9p22.2. Nat Genet. 2009; 41(9): 996-1000. PMID: 19648919.
  13. Pharoah P.D., Tsai Y.Y., Ramus S.J., et al. GWAS meta-analysis and replication identifies three new susceptibility loci for ovarian cancer. Nat Genet. 2013; 45(4): 362-70, 70e1-2. PMID: 23535730.
  14. Permuth-Wey J., Lawrenson K., Shen H.C., et al. Identification and molecular characterization of a new ovarian cancer susceptibility locus at 17q21.31. Nat Commun. 2013; 4: 1627. PMID: 23535648.
  15. Kuchenbaecker K.B., Ramus S.J., Tyrer J., et al. Identification of six new susceptibility loci for invasive epithelial ovarian cancer. Nat Genet. 2015; 47(2): 164-71. PMID: 25581431.
  16. Bolton K.L., Tyrer J., Song H., et al. Common variants at 19p13 are associated with susceptibility to ovarian cancer. Nat Genet. 2010; 42(10): 880-4. PMID: 20852633.
  17. Bojesen S.E., Pooley K.A., Johnatty S.E., et al. Multiple independent variants at the TERT locus are associated with telomere length and risks of breast and ovarian cancer. Nat Genet. 2013; 45(4): 371-84, 84e1-2. PMID: 23535731.
  18. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Clinical guideline [CG164]: Familial breast cancer: classification, care and managing breast cancer and related risks in people with a family history of breast cancer. 2013. PMID: None.
  19. Daly M.B., Pilarski R., Axilbund J.E., et al. Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Breast and Ovarian, Version 2.2015. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2016;14(2):153-62. PMID: 26850485.
  20. Moyer V.A. Force USPST. Risk assessment, genetic counseling, and genetic testing for BRCA-related cancer in women: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med. 2014; 160(4): 271-81. PMID: 24366376.
  21. Domchek S.M., Friebel T.M., Singer C.F., et al. Association of risk-reducing surgery in BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation carriers with cancer risk and mortality. JAMA. 2010; 304(9): 967-75. PMID: 20810374.
  22. Moyer V.A. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for ovarian cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force reaffirmation recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med. 2012; 157(12): 900-4.
  23. Ledermann J.A., Raja F.A., et al. Newly diagnosed and relapsed epithelial ovarian carcinoma: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Onco. 2013; 24(Suppl 6): vi24-vi32. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdt333.
  24. uploads/2012/08/info20.pdf
  25. Lycke M., Kristjansdottir B., Sundfeldt K. A multicenter clinical trial validating the performance of HE4, CA125, risk of ovarian malignancy algorithm and risk of malignancy index. Gynecol Oncol. 2018; 151(1): 159-165. doi:10.1016/j.ygyno.2018.08.025
  26. Pinsky P.F., Yu K., Kramer B.S., et al. Extended mortality results for ovarian cancer screening in the PLCO trial with median 15years follow-up. Gynecol Oncol. 2016; 143(2): 270-5.
  27. Jacobs I.J., Menon U., Ryan A., 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.PMID: 26707054.
  28. Felder M., Kapur A., Gonzalez-Bosquet J., Horibata S., Heintz J., Albrecht R., Fass L., Kaur J., Hu K., Shojaei H., Whelan R.J., Patankar M.S. MUC16 (CA125): tumor biomarker to cancer therapy, a work in progress. Mol Cancer. 2014; 13: 129.
  29. Trabert B., Pinto L., Hartge P., Kemp T., Black A., Sherman M.E., Brinton L.A., Pfeiffer R.M., Shiels M.S., Chaturvedi A.K., Hildesheim A., Wentzensen N. Pre-diagnostic serum levels of inflammation markers and risk of ovar- ian cancer in the prostate, lung, colorectal and ovarian cancer (PLCO) screening trial. Gynecol Oncol. 2014; 135: 297-304.
  30. Boylan K.L.M., Geschwind K., Koopmeiners J.S., Geller M.A., Starr T.K., Skubitz A.P.N. A multiplex platform for the identification of ovarian cancer biomarkers. Clin Proteomics. 2017 Oct 10; 14: 34. doi: 10.1186/s12014-017-9169-6. eCollection 2017.
  31. Zhang Z., Chan D.W. The road from discovery to clinical diagnostics: lessons learned from the first FDA-cleared in vitro diagnostic multivariate index assay of proteomic biomarkers. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2010; 19(12): 2995-9. [PubMed: 20962299]
  32. Ueland F.R., Desimone C.P., Seamon L.G., et al. Effectiveness of a multivariate index assay in the preoperative assessment of ovarian tumors. Obstet Gynecol. 2011; 117(6): 1289-1297. [PubMed: 21606739]
  33. Kaaks R., Fortner R.T., Husing A., et al. Tumor-associated autoantibodies as early detection markers for ovarian cancer? A prospective evaluation. Int J Cancer 2018; 143(3): 515-26.
  34. Fortner R.T., Damms-Machado A., Kaaks R. Systematic review: tumor-associated antigen autoantibodies and ovarian cancer early detection. Gynecol Oncol 2017; 147(2): 465-80.
  35. Giannopoulou L., Kasimir-Bauer S., Lianidou E.S. Liquid biopsy in ovarian cancer: recent advances on circulating tumor cells and circulating tumor DNA. Clin Chem Lab Med. 2018; 56: 186-97.
  36. Taylor D.D., Gercel-Taylor C. MicroRNA signatures of tumor-derived exosomes as diagnostic biomarkers of ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2008; 110: 13-21. https://
  37. Yokoi A., Yoshioka Y., Hirakawa A., Yamamoto Y., Ishikawa M., Ikeda S., et al. A combination of circulating miRNAs for the early detection of ovarian cancer. Oncotarget. 2017; 8: 89811-23.
  38. Kyriazi S., Kaye S.B., deSouza N.M. Imaging ovarian cancer and peritoneal metastases – current and emerging techniques. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2010; 7(7): 381-93. doi: 10.1038/nrclinonc.2010.47.
  39. Iyer VR, Lee S. MRI, CT, and PET/CT for ovarian cancer detection and adnexal lesion characterization. American Journal of Roentgenology. 2010; 194: 311-21. doi: 10.2214/AJR.09.3522.
  40. Timmerman D., Ameye L., Fischerova D., et al. Simple ultrasound rules to distinguish between benign and malignant adnexal masses before surgery: prospective validation by IOTA group. BMJ. 2010;341: c6839.
  41. Anthoulakis C., Nikoloudis N., Pelvic MRI. as the ‘‘gold standard’’ in the subsequent evaluation of ultrasound- indeterminate adnexal lesions: a systematic review. Gynecol Oncol. 2014; 132: 661-8.
  42. MacKintosh M.L., Rahim R., Rajashanker B., et al. CT scan does not predict optimal debulking in stage III–IV epi- thelial ovarian cancer: a multicentre validation study. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2014; 34(5): 424-8. doi: 10.3109/ 01443615.2014.899330.
  43. Solopova A.E., Makatsaria A.D., Sdvizhkov A.M., Ternovoy S.K. Magnetic resonance imaging in the differential diagnosis of ovarian masses: Capabilities of quantitative multiparametric evaluation. Akusherstvo i Ginekologiya/Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2017; 2: 80-5. (in Russian)
  44. Pereira P.N., Sarian L.O., Yoshida A., et al. Accuracy of the ADNEX MR scoring system based on a simplified MRI protocol for the assessment of adnexal masses. Diagn Interv Radiol 2018; 24: 63-71.
  45. Morton R., Anderson L., Carter J., et al. Intraoperative frozen section of ovarian tumors: a 6-year review of performance and potential pitfalls in an Australian Tertiary Referral Center. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2017; 27: 17-21. doi:10.1097/IGC.0000000000000851

Received 18.06.2019

Accepted 21.06.2019

About the Authors

Julia V. Nosova, M.D., Researcher of the Innovative Oncology and Gynecology Department, National Medical Research Center for Obstetrics, Gynecology and Perinatology named after Academician V.I. Kulakov of Ministry of Healthcare of Russian Federation; e-mail:
4 Oparin str, 117997, Moscow, Russia
Alina E. Solopova, PhD in Medical sciences, Leading Researcher, Radiology Department, National Medical Research Center for Obstetrics, Gynecology and Perinatology named after Academician V.I. Kulakov of Ministry of Healthcare of Russian Federation; e-mail:
4 Oparin str, 117997, Moscow, Russia
Grigorii N. Khabas, M.D., Ph.D., Head of Innovative Oncology and Gynecology Department, National Medical Research Center for Obstetrics, Gynecology and Perinatology named after Academician V.I. Kulakov of Ministry of Healthcare of Russian Federation; e-mail:
4 Oparin str, 117997, Moscow, Russia

For citation: Nosova Yu.V., Solopova A.E., Khabas G.N. Current trends in screening and differential diagnosis of epithelial ovarian tumors.
Akusherstvo i Ginekologiya/Obstetrics and gynecology. 2019; 9:50-6(In Russian)

Similar Articles

By continuing to use our site, you consent to the processing of cookies that ensure the proper functioning of the site.