Ovarian masses in the child and adolescent: An American Pediatric Surgical Association Outcomes and Evidence-Based Practice Committee systematic review
jpedsurg.org shows its articles on its own site.
Read the article on jpedsurg.org ↗Article · Sep 2018 · 1 min read
In brief
In brief
APSA systematic review examining preoperative assessment and surgical management of pediatric ovarian masses, emphasizing fertility-sparing approaches. Reviews evidence for tumor markers, imaging criteria, and surgical techniques including cystectomy versus oophorectomy for germ cell and borderline tumors.
Written by the GCMD Library team from the article.
Background
The treatment of ovarian masses in pediatric patients should balance appropriate surgical management with the preservation of future reproductive capability. Preoperative estimation of malignant potential is essential to planning an optimal surgical strategy.
Methods
The American Pediatric Surgical Association Outcomes and Evidence-Based Practice Committee drafted three consensus-based questions regarding the evaluation and treatment of ovarian masses in pediatric patients. A search of PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science was performed and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed to identify articles for review.
Results
Preoperative tumor markers, ultrasound malignancy indices, and the presence or absence of the ovarian crescent sign on imaging can help estimate malignant potential prior to surgical resection. Frozen section also plays a role in operative strategy. Surgical staging is useful for directing chemotherapy and for prognostication. Both unilateral oophorectomy and cystectomy have been used successfully for germ cell and borderline ovarian tumors, although cystectomy may be associated with higher rates of local recurrence.
Conclusions
Malignant potential of ovarian masses can be estimated preoperatively, and fertility-sparing techniques may be appropriate depending on the type of tumor. This review provides recommendations based on a critical evaluation of recent literature.
Type of study
Systematic review of level 1–4 studies.
Level of evidence
Level 1–4 (mainly 3–4).