O-RADS US v2022: An Update from the American College of Radiology's Ovarian-Adnexal Reporting and Data System US Committee.

First published in 2019, the Ovarian-Adnexal Reporting and Data System (O-RADS) US provides a standardized lexicon for ovarian and adnexal lesions, enables stratification of these lesions with use of a numeric score based on morphologic features to indicate the risk of malignancy, and offers management guidance. This risk stratification system has subsequently been validated in retrospective studies and has yielded good interreader concordance, even with users of different levels of expertise. As use of the system increased, it was recognized that an update was needed to address certain clinical challenges, clarify recommendations, and incorporate emerging data from validation studies. Additional morphologic features that favor benignity, such as the bilocular feature for cysts without solid components and shadowing for solid lesions with smooth contours, were added to O-RADS US for optimal risk-appropriate scoring. As O-RADS US 4 has been shown to be an appropriate cutoff for malignancy, it is now recommended that lower-risk O-RADS US 3 lesions be followed with US if not excised. For solid lesions and cystic lesions with solid components, further characterization with MRI is now emphasized as a supplemental evaluation method, as MRI may provide higher specificity. This statement summarizes the updates to the governing concepts, lexicon terminology and assessment categories, and management recommendations found in the 2022 version of O-RADS US.

Ovulation induction and intrauterine insemination in women of advanced reproductive age: a systematic review of the literature.

PURPOSE: The objective of this review is to define live birth rate (LBR) and clinical pregnancy rate (CPR) for women ≥ 40 undergoing ovulation induction (OI)/intrauterine insemination (IUI). METHODS: A systematic review was performed in accordance with PRISMA guidelines using PubMed and Google Scholar. The primary and secondary outcomes of interest were LBR and CPR, respectively. RESULTS: There were 636 studies screened of which 42 were included. In 8 studies which provided LBR for partner sperm, LBR/cycle ranged from 0 to 8.5% with majority being ≤ 4%. Cumulative LBR was 3.6 to 7.1% over 6 cycles with the majority of pregnancies in the first 4. In the four studies providing LBR for donor sperm cycles, LBR/cycle ranged from 3 to 7% with cumulative LBR of 12 to 24% over 6 cycles. The majority of pregnancies occurred in the first 6 cycles. There were three studies with LBR or CPR/cycle ≥ 1% for women ≥ 43. No studies provided data above this range for women ≥ 45. In 4 studies which compared OI/IUI and IVF, the LBR from IVF was 9.2 to 22% per cycle. In 7 studies which compared outcomes by stimulation protocol, no significant differences were seen. CONCLUSION: For women ≥ 40 using homologous sperm, the highest probability of live birth is via IVF. However, if IVF is not an option, OI/IUI may be considered for up to 4 cycles in those using partner sperm or 6 cycles with donor sperm. For women > 45, OI/IUI is likely futile but a limited trial may be considered for psychological benefit while encouraging consideration of donor oocyte IVF or adoption. Use of gonadotropins does not appear to be more effective than oral agents in this age group.

Catastrophic Human Error in Assisted Reproductive Technologies: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVE: Assisted reproductive technologies (ARTs) are complex processes with multiple and diverse opportunities for human error. Errors in ART are thought to be rare, but can have devastating consequences for patients and their offspring. The objectives of this article are to review known cases of human error in the ART laboratory and suggest preventative strategies. METHODS: We performed a systematic review of the literature in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines using PubMed and Google Scholar databases. Studies were eligible for inclusion if they involved known cases of unintentional human error in the ART laboratory. Only full-text articles in English were included. References of the resulted studies were considered for inclusion. RESULTS: A total of 420 articles were screened and 37 articles were selected for inclusion. These largely included case reports and reviews in the medical and legal literature. Twenty-two adverse events due to human error in the ART laboratory were identified. Eight of these adverse events were the result of the insemination with the wrong sperm, 6 errors lead to the transfer of the wrong embryo, 3 lead to an error in preimplantation genetic testing, and 5 adverse events lead to the failure of gamete and embryo cryostorage. CONCLUSIONS: Since the advent of ART, there have been reports of catastrophic events occurring secondary to human error in the laboratory to include incidents of unintended parentage, and have resulted in the loss of embryos and gametes through cryostorage failure. Proposed solutions include the stringent implementation and adherence to safety protocols, adequate laboratory staffing and training, and novel methods for specimen labeling and tracking. Of utmost importance is having knowledge of these errors and the ability to determine cause so that future events can be prevented.