Abstract:<table class="table article-section__table"><thead><tr><th class="bottom-bordered-cell center-aligned">Ultrasound</th><th class="bottom-bordered-cell center-aligned">Magnetic resonance imaging</th></tr><tr><th class="bottom-bordered-cell center-aligned">Agreement with laparoscopy (kappa value)</th><th class="bottom-bordered-cell center-aligned">Interobserver agreement (kappa value)</th><th class="bottom-bordered-cell center-aligned">Agreement with laparoscopy (kappa value)</th><th class="bottom-bordered-cell center-aligned">Interobserver agreement (kappa value)</th></tr><tr><th class="bottom-bordered-cell center-aligned">Trainee</th><th class="bottom-bordered-cell center-aligned">Expert</th><th class="bottom-bordered-cell center-aligned">Trainee vs Expert</th><th class="bottom-bordered-cell center-aligned">Trainee</th><th class="bottom-bordered-cell center-aligned">Expert</th><th class="bottom-bordered-cell center-aligned">Trainee vs Expert</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td class="right-bordered-cell center-aligned">Pelvis DE overall</td><td class="center-aligned">1st set</td><td class="center-aligned">0.39</td><td class="center-aligned">0.58</td><td class="center-aligned">0.58</td><td class="center-aligned">0.48</td><td class="center-aligned">0.71</td><td class="center-aligned">0.78</td></tr><tr><td class="center-aligned">2nd set</td><td class="center-aligned">0.54</td><td class="center-aligned">0.83</td><td class="center-aligned">0.71</td><td class="center-aligned">0.59</td><td class="center-aligned">0.79</td><td class="center-aligned">0.63</td></tr><tr><td class="center-aligned">3rd set</td><td class="center-aligned">0.48</td><td class="center-aligned">0.70</td><td class="center-aligned">0.74</td><td class="center-aligned">0.47</td><td class="center-aligned">0.75</td><td class="center-aligned">0.59</td></tr><tr><td class="right-bordered-cell left-aligned">Frozen pelvis</td><td class="center-aligned">1st set</td><td class="center-aligned">0.35</td><td class="center-aligned">0.51</td><td class="center-aligned">0.80</td><td class="center-aligned"> 0.04<a class="noteLink scrollableLink" href="#uog20561-note-0016_1">*</a><span class="footNotePopup"><span>All results were statistically significant, except values with * (p > .05)<br/></span></span></td><td class="center-aligned"> 0.15<a class="noteLink scrollableLink" href="#uog20561-note-0016_2">*</a><span class="footNotePopup"><span>All results were statistically significant, except values with * (p > .05)<br/></span></span></td><td class="center-aligned">0.72</td></tr><tr><td class="center-aligned">2nd set</td><td class="center-aligned">0.71</td><td class="center-aligned">0.77</td><td class="center-aligned">0.94</td><td class="center-aligned"> 0.03<a class="noteLink scrollableLink" href="#uog20561-note-0016_3">*</a><span class="footNotePopup"><span>All results were statistically significant, except values with * (p > .05)<br/></span></span></td><td class="center-aligned"> 0.29<a class="noteLink scrollableLink" href="#uog20561-note-0016_4">*</a><span class="footNotePopup"><span>All results were statistically significant, except values with * (p > .05)<br/></span></span></td><td class="center-aligned">0.61</td></tr><tr><td class="center-aligned">3rd set</td><td class="center-aligned">0.80</td><td class="center-aligned">0.74</td><td class="center-aligned">0.93</td><td class="center-aligned">0.27</td><td class="center-aligned">0.35</td><td class="center-aligned">0.84</td></tr></tbody></table><ul><li>All results were statistically significant, except values with * (p > .05)</li></ul>

OP03.05: Detection of Vulvar International Tumor Analysis criteria among sonographers in lymph node evaluation: interrater reliability study

OC01.04: *AI‐driven ultrasound detection of ovarian cancer that generalises: an international multicentre validation study

OC05.02: External validation of ultrasound‐based prediction models for discrimination between benign and malignant adnexal masses in Italy: IOTA phase 6 study

OC04.03: Preoperative assessment of non‐resectability in ovarian cancer according to ESGO criteria: a prospective multicentre study using imaging (ISAAC study)

EP24.30: Pilot study of intra‐ and interoperator agreement of a proposed image quality scoring system for transvaginal ultrasound images

OC21.03: Diagnostic accuracy of direct and indirect signs of adenomyosis and interrater reliability: a prospective multicentre study

OC20.07: Early learning curve in the assessment of deep infiltrating pelvic endometriosis when using ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging

VP66.09: Clinical and ultrasound characteristics of vaginal pathology detected at ultrasound examination: a single centre prospective study

OP06.03: Preoperative sonographic evaluation of adnexal masses using the new Ovarian‐Adnexal Reporting and Data System

OC12.03: Comparison of clinical and ultrasound characteristics in low‐ and high‐grade serous cancer

Role of 3-Dimensional Sonography in the Assessment of Submucous Fibroids: A Pilot Study

VP05.17: Learning curve for the ultrasound detection of uterosacral ligaments and torus uterinus deep endometriosis: repeatability and reproducibility study

OC21.02: *Endometrial assessment on ultrasound: why transvaginal scan alone is not good enough?

OP17.06: Diagnosing adenomyosis using transvaginal contrast‐enhanced ultrasound: a pilot study

OP03.03: Role of artificial intelligence applied to ultrasound in gynecology oncology: a systematic review

EP17.55: Interobserver reproducibility of a novel cervical elastography index

EP23.19: Diagnostic accuracy of ultrasound scoring systems in differentiating benign versus malignant adnexal masses

EP34.17: Preoperative assessment of myometrial infiltration low‐risk endometrial cancer by 3D transvaginal ultrasound

EP23.33: Transvaginal colour Doppler ultrasound in early diagnosis of ovarian cancer: a 24‐ year experience

Vulvar Inspection During Cervical Cancer Screening Procedures: The Ugly Reality

OP03.01: Tru‐cut biopsy in gynecological cancer: adequacy, accuracy, safety and clinical applicability