DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Sonographic Pattern Recognition of Endometriomas Mimicking Ovarian Cancer

  • Saeng-Anan, Ubol (Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine Chiang Mai University) ;
  • Pantasri, Tawiwan (Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine Chiang Mai University) ;
  • Neeyalavira, Vithida (Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine Chiang Mai University) ;
  • Tongsong, Theera (Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine Chiang Mai University)
  • Published : 2013.09.30

Abstract

Background: To assess the accuracy of ultrasound in differentiating endometrioma from ovarian cancer and to describe pattern recognition for atypical endometriomas mimicking ovarian cancers. Materials and Methods: Patients scheduled for elective surgery for adnexal masses were sonographically evaluated for endometrioma within 24 hours of surgery. All examinations were performed by the same experienced sonographer, who had no any information of the patients, to differentiate between endometriomas and non-endometriomas using a simple rule (classic ground-glass appearance) and subjective impression (pattern recognition). The final diagnosis as a gold standard relied on either pathological or post-operative findings. Results: Of 638 patients available for analysis, 146 were proven to be endometriomas. Of them, the simple rule and subjective impression could sonographically detect endometriomas with sensitivities of 64.4% (94/146) and 89.7% (131/146), respectively. Of 52 endometriomas with false negative tests by the simple rule, 13 were predicted as benign masses and 39 were mistaken for malignancy. Solid masses and papillary projections were the most common forms mimicking ovarian cancer, consisting of 38.5% of the missed diagnoses. However, with pattern recognition (subjective impression), 32 from 39 cases mimicking ovarian cancer were correctly predicted for endometriomas. All endometriomas subjectively predicted for ovarian malignancy were associated with high vascularization in the solid masses. Conclusions: Pattern recognition of endometriomas by subjective assessment had a higher sensitivity than the simple rule in characterization of endometriomas. Most endometriomas mimicking ovarian malignancy could be correctly predicted by subjective impression based on familiarity of pattern recognition.

Keywords

Endometrioma;benign;malignancy;simple rule;pattern recognition;subjective impression

References

  1. Brown DL, Frates MC, Muto MG, Welch WR (2004). Small echogenic foci in the ovaries: correlation with histologic findings. J Ultrasound Med, 23, 307-13. https://doi.org/10.7863/jum.2004.23.2.307
  2. Alcazar JL, Laparte C, Jurado M, Lopez-Garcia G (1997). The role of transvaginal ultrasonography combined with color velocity imaging and pulsed Doppler in the diagnosis of endometrioma. Fertil Steril, 67, 487-91. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0015-0282(97)80074-X
  3. Bhatt S, Kocakoc E, Dogra VS (2006). Endometriosis: sonographic spectrum. Ultrasound Q, 22, 273-80. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ruq.0000237256.41132.fb
  4. Guerriero S, Ajossa S, Mais V, et al (1998). The diagnosis of endometriomas using colour Doppler energy imaging. Hum Reprod, 13, 1691-5. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/13.6.1691
  5. Hafeez S, Sufian S, Beg M, et al (2013). Role of ultrasound in characterization of ovarian masses. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, 14, 603-6. https://doi.org/10.7314/APJCP.2013.14.1.603
  6. Haiyan H, Min D (2011) Ultrasound operators' confidence influences diagnosis of ovarian tumors - a study in China. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, 12, 1275-7.
  7. Jermy K, Luise C, Bourne T (2001). The characterization of common ovarian cysts in premenopausal women. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol, 17, 140-4. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1469-0705.2001.00330.x
  8. Khattak YJ, Hafeez S, Alam T, et al (2013). Ovarian masses: is multi-detector computed tomography a reliable imaging modality? Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, 14, 2627-30. https://doi.org/10.7314/APJCP.2013.14.4.2627
  9. Kinkel K, Frei KA, Balleyguier C, Chapron C (2006). Diagnosis of endometriosis with imaging: a review. Eur Radiol, 16, 285-98. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-005-2882-y
  10. Tongsong T, Wanapirak C, Sukpan K, Khunamornpong S, Pathumbal A (2007). Subjective sonographic assessment for differentiation between malignant and benign adnexal masses. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, 8, 124-6.
  11. Pascual MA, Tresserra F, Lopez-Marin L, et al (2000). Role of color Doppler ultrasonography in the diagnosis of endometriotic cyst. J Ultrasound Med, 19, 695-9. https://doi.org/10.7863/jum.2000.19.10.695
  12. Patel MD, Feldstein VA, Chen DC, Lipson SD, Filly RA (1999). Endometriomas: diagnostic performance of US. Radiol, 210, 739-45. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.210.3.r99fe61739
  13. Tongsong T, Luewan S, Phadungkiatwattana P, et al (2008). Pattern recognition using transabdominal ultrasound to diagnose ovarian mature cystic teratoma. Int J Gynaecol, Obstet, 103, 99-104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgo.2008.06.002
  14. Valentin L (2004). Use of morphology to characterize and manage common adnexal masses. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol, 18, 71-89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2003.10.002
  15. Van HC, Van CB, Guerriero S, et al (2010). Endometriomas: their ultrasound characteristics. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol, 35, 730-40.

Cited by

  1. Factors that Differentiate between Endometriosis-associated Ovarian Cancer and Benign Ovarian Endometriosis with Mural Nodules vol.17, pp.3, 2018, https://doi.org/10.2463/mrms.mp.2016-0149