Background: Patients with cervical cancer treatment experience an impairment of sexual function and quality of life. This issue is usually underreported and undertreated, and evidence-based interventions are lacking. Prevention of sexual dysfunction is a crucial pillar in improving the quality of life of these patients. The primary objective of this trial is to evaluate the impact of a multimodal intervention, encompassing prevention of vaginal dysfunction and patient education, on sexual function and quality of life in cervical cancer survivors utilizing patient-reported outcome measurements. Methods Multi-institutional, randomized clinical trial where patients will be randomized 1:2 at diagnosis of initial or locally advanced cervical cancer to control arm or intervention arm. After treatment, control arm patients will undergo standard follow-up by their referring physician. The multimodal intervention for patients in the intervention group includes application of vaginal estrogens plus hyaluronic-acid cream along with use of vaginal vibrator, systematic evaluation of the need of systemic hormone replacement therapy and treatment if needed, and access to online content about sexuality, nutrition, sports and lifestyle habits.Through 4 appointments (at diagnosis, 1, 6, and 12 months after treatment), sexual health, vaginal trophism and self-perceived quality of life of patients in both arms will be assessed with validated questionnaires as female sexual function index (FSFI), European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Core Questionnaire 30, and Cx-24, Cervantes Scale, vaginal health index and vaginal thickness assessed by ultrasound. The major inclusion criteria will be patients aged ≥18 years with the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stage I–III cervical cancer treated with surgery and/or radiotherapy. The primary endpoint will be FSFI score 12 months after treatment, which will be compared between groups. Uni- and multivariate analysis will be performed to identify factors influencing sexual function recovery after treatment. The sample size will be of 120 eligible patients, who will be randomized to detect an improvement of 5.2 points in FSFI score. Complete accrual is estimated in March 2026. To date, the present study has no external funding.

Purpose: The aim of this study was to compare the diagnostic performance of the Gynecology Imaging Reporting and Data System (GI-RADS) and Ovarian-Adnexal Reporting and Data System (O-RADS) ultrasound (US) classification systems and assess their capacity to stratify the risk of malignancy in adnexal masses (AMs). Methods: A comprehensive search of MEDLINE (PubMed), Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar was conducted to identify articles published between January 2020 and August 2023. The quality of the studies, the risk of bias, and concerns regarding applicability were assessed using QUADAS-2. Results: The search yielded 132 citations. Five articles, which included a total of 2,448 AMs, were ultimately selected for inclusion. The risk of bias was high in all articles regarding patient selection, low in four studies for the index test, and unclear in three papers for the reference test. For GI-RADS, the pooled sensitivity and specificity were 90.8% (95% confidence interval [CI], 86.0% to 94.0%) and 91.5% (95% CI, 89.0% to 93.0%), respectively. For O-RADS, the pooled sensitivity and specificity were 95.1% (95% CI, 93.0% to 97.0%) and 88.8% (95% CI, 85.0% to 92.0%), respectively. O-RADS demonstrated greater sensitivity for malignancy than GI-RADS (P<0.05). Heterogeneity was moderate for both sensitivity and specificity with respect to GIRADS; for O-RADS, heterogeneity was moderate for sensitivity and high for specificity. Conclusion Both GI-RADS and O-RADS US demonstrate good diagnostic performance in the preoperative assessment of AMs. However, the O-RADS classification provides superior sensitivity.

Purpose: The aim of this study was to compare the diagnostic performance of the Gynecology Imaging Reporting and Data System (GI-RADS) and Ovarian-Adnexal Reporting and Data System (O-RADS) ultrasound (US) classification systems and assess their capacity to stratify the risk of malignancy in adnexal masses (AMs). Methods: A comprehensive search of MEDLINE (PubMed), Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar was conducted to identify articles published between January 2020 and August 2023. The quality of the studies, the risk of bias, and concerns regarding applicability were assessed using QUADAS-2. Results: The search yielded 132 citations. Five articles, which included a total of 2,448 AMs, were ultimately selected for inclusion. The risk of bias was high in all articles regarding patient selection, low in four studies for the index test, and unclear in three papers for the reference test. For GI-RADS, the pooled sensitivity and specificity were 90.8% (95% confidence interval [CI], 86.0% to 94.0%) and 91.5% (95% CI, 89.0% to 93.0%), respectively. For O-RADS, the pooled sensitivity and specificity were 95.1% (95% CI, 93.0% to 97.0%) and 88.8% (95% CI, 85.0% to 92.0%), respectively. O-RADS demonstrated greater sensitivity for malignancy than GI-RADS (P<0.05). Heterogeneity was moderate for both sensitivity and specificity with respect to GIRADS; for O-RADS, heterogeneity was moderate for sensitivity and high for specificity. Conclusion Both GI-RADS and O-RADS US demonstrate good diagnostic performance in the preoperative assessment of AMs. However, the O-RADS classification provides superior sensitivity.

Purpose: The aim of this study was to compare the diagnostic performance of the Gynecology Imaging Reporting and Data System (GI-RADS) and Ovarian-Adnexal Reporting and Data System (O-RADS) ultrasound (US) classification systems and assess their capacity to stratify the risk of malignancy in adnexal masses (AMs). Methods: A comprehensive search of MEDLINE (PubMed), Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar was conducted to identify articles published between January 2020 and August 2023. The quality of the studies, the risk of bias, and concerns regarding applicability were assessed using QUADAS-2. Results: The search yielded 132 citations. Five articles, which included a total of 2,448 AMs, were ultimately selected for inclusion. The risk of bias was high in all articles regarding patient selection, low in four studies for the index test, and unclear in three papers for the reference test. For GI-RADS, the pooled sensitivity and specificity were 90.8% (95% confidence interval [CI], 86.0% to 94.0%) and 91.5% (95% CI, 89.0% to 93.0%), respectively. For O-RADS, the pooled sensitivity and specificity were 95.1% (95% CI, 93.0% to 97.0%) and 88.8% (95% CI, 85.0% to 92.0%), respectively. O-RADS demonstrated greater sensitivity for malignancy than GI-RADS (P<0.05). Heterogeneity was moderate for both sensitivity and specificity with respect to GIRADS; for O-RADS, heterogeneity was moderate for sensitivity and high for specificity. Conclusion Both GI-RADS and O-RADS US demonstrate good diagnostic performance in the preoperative assessment of AMs. However, the O-RADS classification provides superior sensitivity.

Purpose: The aim of this study was to compare the diagnostic performance of the Gynecology Imaging Reporting and Data System (GI-RADS) and Ovarian-Adnexal Reporting and Data System (O-RADS) ultrasound (US) classification systems and assess their capacity to stratify the risk of malignancy in adnexal masses (AMs). Methods: A comprehensive search of MEDLINE (PubMed), Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar was conducted to identify articles published between January 2020 and August 2023. The quality of the studies, the risk of bias, and concerns regarding applicability were assessed using QUADAS-2. Results: The search yielded 132 citations. Five articles, which included a total of 2,448 AMs, were ultimately selected for inclusion. The risk of bias was high in all articles regarding patient selection, low in four studies for the index test, and unclear in three papers for the reference test. For GI-RADS, the pooled sensitivity and specificity were 90.8% (95% confidence interval [CI], 86.0% to 94.0%) and 91.5% (95% CI, 89.0% to 93.0%), respectively. For O-RADS, the pooled sensitivity and specificity were 95.1% (95% CI, 93.0% to 97.0%) and 88.8% (95% CI, 85.0% to 92.0%), respectively. O-RADS demonstrated greater sensitivity for malignancy than GI-RADS (P<0.05). Heterogeneity was moderate for both sensitivity and specificity with respect to GIRADS; for O-RADS, heterogeneity was moderate for sensitivity and high for specificity. Conclusion Both GI-RADS and O-RADS US demonstrate good diagnostic performance in the preoperative assessment of AMs. However, the O-RADS classification provides superior sensitivity.

Purpose: The aim of this study was to compare the diagnostic performance of the Gynecology Imaging Reporting and Data System (GI-RADS) and Ovarian-Adnexal Reporting and Data System (O-RADS) ultrasound (US) classification systems and assess their capacity to stratify the risk of malignancy in adnexal masses (AMs). Methods: A comprehensive search of MEDLINE (PubMed), Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar was conducted to identify articles published between January 2020 and August 2023. The quality of the studies, the risk of bias, and concerns regarding applicability were assessed using QUADAS-2. Results: The search yielded 132 citations. Five articles, which included a total of 2,448 AMs, were ultimately selected for inclusion. The risk of bias was high in all articles regarding patient selection, low in four studies for the index test, and unclear in three papers for the reference test. For GI-RADS, the pooled sensitivity and specificity were 90.8% (95% confidence interval [CI], 86.0% to 94.0%) and 91.5% (95% CI, 89.0% to 93.0%), respectively. For O-RADS, the pooled sensitivity and specificity were 95.1% (95% CI, 93.0% to 97.0%) and 88.8% (95% CI, 85.0% to 92.0%), respectively. O-RADS demonstrated greater sensitivity for malignancy than GI-RADS (P<0.05). Heterogeneity was moderate for both sensitivity and specificity with respect to GIRADS; for O-RADS, heterogeneity was moderate for sensitivity and high for specificity. Conclusion Both GI-RADS and O-RADS US demonstrate good diagnostic performance in the preoperative assessment of AMs. However, the O-RADS classification provides superior sensitivity.

Background: and Purpose Recent studies suggested an increased incidence of cerebral venous thrombosis (CVT) during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. We evaluated the volume of CVT hospitalization and in-hospital mortality during the 1st year of the COVID-19 pandemic compared to the preceding year. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional retrospective study of 171 stroke centers from 49 countries. We recorded COVID-19 admission volumes, CVT hospitalization, and CVT in-hospital mortality from January 1, 2019, to May 31, 2021. CVT diagnoses were identified by International Classification of Disease-10 (ICD-10) codes or stroke databases. We additionally sought to compare the same metrics in the first 5 months of 2021 compared to the corresponding months in 2019 and 2020 (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04934020). Results: There were 2,313 CVT admissions across the 1-year pre-pandemic (2019) and pandemic year (2020); no differences in CVT volume or CVT mortality were observed. During the first 5 months of 2021, there was an increase in CVT volumes compared to 2019 (27.5%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 24.2 to 32.0; P<0.0001) and 2020 (41.4%; 95% CI, 37.0 to 46.0; P<0.0001). A COVID-19 diagnosis was present in 7.6% (132/1,738) of CVT hospitalizations. CVT was present in 0.04% (103/292,080) of COVID-19 hospitalizations. During the first pandemic year, CVT mortality was higher in patients who were COVID positive compared to COVID negative patients (8/53 [15.0%] vs. 41/910 [4.5%], P=0.004). There was an increase in CVT mortality during the first 5 months of pandemic years 2020 and 2021 compared to the first 5 months of the pre-pandemic year 2019 (2019 vs. 2020: 2.26% vs. 4.74%, P=0.05; 2019 vs. 2021: 2.26% vs. 4.99%, P=0.03). In the first 5 months of 2021, there were 26 cases of vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia (VITT), resulting in six deaths. Conclusions During the 1st year of the COVID-19 pandemic, CVT hospitalization volume and CVT in-hospital mortality did not change compared to the prior year. COVID-19 diagnosis was associated with higher CVT in-hospital mortality. During the first 5 months of 2021, there was an increase in CVT hospitalization volume and increase in CVT-related mortality, partially attributable to VITT.