VP61.05: Efficient and customised use of IOTA ADNEX model as a clinical management tool in a tailor‐made treatment of adnexal tumour suspected of malignancy

Abstract

Virtual poster abstracts Results: 16/25 (64.0%) of the gynecologists were IOTA-certified. The IOTA template was used in 83/90 (92.2%) cases. 58/83 (69.9%) descriptions used IOTA terms correctly with adequate information. Conflicting use of IOTA terms were seen in 15/83 (18.1%) cases; with misclassification of uni-/multilocular lesions with solid components being the most frequent pitfall. 10/83 (12.0%) contained inadequate measures only. All 7/90 (7.8%) cases not using the IOTA template lacked information on morphology, colour score, and measures. 39/90 (43.3%) images did not document the findings described (colour score (n = 18) and lesion measures (n = 15) mostly missing). In 25/90 (27.8%) patients, the two external reviewers disagreed with the examinating gynecologist on lesion classification (n = 11), cystic content (n = 8), regularity (n = 11), and shadowing (n = 3). There was no significant association between IOTA-certification status and disagreement by reviewers (22.7% in IOTA-certified vs. 29.2% in non-certified, p = 0.193). Conclusions: Essential pitfalls in using the IOTA terms and definitions were relatively frequent, despite IOTA certification. To perform optimal evaluation and implementation of the IOTA diagnostic tools, methods to maintain IOTA competencies must be developed. VP61.05 Efficient and customised use of IOTA ADNEX model as a clinical management tool in a tailor-made treatment of adnexal tumour suspected of malignancy