DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Role of Ultrasound in Characterization of Ovarian Masses

  • Published : 2013.01.31

Abstract

Background: Ovarian cancer is the second most common malignancy in Pakistani women, accounting for 4% of all cancers in the female population. The aim of this study was to determine sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values and 95% confidence intervals for ultrasound in characterization of ovarian masses in patients presenting at public and private tertiary care hospitals in Karachi, Pakistan. Materials and Methods: We adopted a cross-sectional analytical study design to retrospectively collect data from January 2009-11 from medical records of two tertiary care hospitals. Using a non-probability purposive sampling technique, we recruited a sample of 86 women aged between 15 and 85 years fulfilling inclusion criteria with histopathologically proven ovarian masses presenting for an ultrasound examination in our radiology departments. Results: Our retrospective data depicted sensitivity and specificity of ultrasound to be 90.7%, 95%CI (0.77, 0.97) and 91.4%, 95%CI (0.76, 0.98) respectively. Positive predictive value was 93%, 95%CI (0.79, 0.98) and negative predictive value was 89%, 95%CI (0.73, 0.96). A total of 78 ovarian masses were detected, out of which 42 were malignant and 36 were benign. Conclusions: Results of our study further reinforce the conclusion that ultrasound should be used as an initial modality of choice in the workup of every woman suspected of having an ovarian mass. It not only results in decreasing the mortality but also avoids unnecessary surgical interventions.

References

  1. Aleem F, Pennisi J, Zeitoun K, Predanic M (1995). The role of color Doppler in diagnosis of endometriosis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol, 5, 51-4. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1469-0705.1995.05010051.x
  2. Ameye L, Valentin L, Testa AC, et al (2009). A scoring system to differentiate malignant from benign masses in specific ultrasound-based subgroups of adnexal tumors. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol, 33, 92-101. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.6273
  3. Buy JN, Ghossain MA, Sciot C, et al (1991). Epithelial tumors of the ovary: CT findings and correlation with US. Radiology, 178, 811-8. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.178.3.1994423
  4. Fleischer AC, Kepple DM (1992). Benign conditions of the uterus,cervix, and endometrium. In Nyberg DA, Hill LM, Bohm-Velez M, Mendelson EB, eds. Transvaginal Ultrasound.St Louis: Mosby Year Book, 21-41.
  5. Fleischer AC, Rodgers WH, Keppel DM, Williams LL, Jones HW III (1993). Color doppler sonography of ovarian masses: a multiparameter analysis. J Ultrasound Med, 12, 41-8.
  6. Guerriero S, Mais V, Ajossa S, et al (1995). The role of endovaginal ultrasound in differentiating endometriomas from other ovarian cysts. Clin Exp Obstet Gynecol, 22, 20-2.
  7. Jacobs I, Oram D, Fairbanks J, et al (1990). A risk of malignancy index incorporating CA 125, ultrasound and menopausal status for the accurate preoperative diagnosis of ovarian cancer. Br J Obstet Gynaecol, 97, 922-9. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0528.1990.tb02448.x
  8. Jain KA (1994). Prospective evaluation of adnexal masses with endovaginal gray-scale and duplex and color Doppler US: correlation with pathologic findings. Radiology, 191, 63-7. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.191.1.8134599
  9. Jemal A, Siegel R, Ward E, et al (2008). CA Cancer J Clin, 58, 71-96. https://doi.org/10.3322/CA.2007.0010
  10. 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
  11. Jung SE, Lee JM, Rha SE, (2002). CT and MR imaging of ovarian tumors with emphasis on differential diagnosis. Radiographics, 22, 1305-25. https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.226025033
  12. Kinkel K, Hricak H, Lu Y, Tsuda K, Filly RA (2000). US characterization of ovarian masses: a meta-analysis. Radiology, 217, 803-11. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.217.3.r00dc20803
  13. Kinkel K, Lu Y, Mehdizade A, Pelte MF, Hricak H (2005). Indeterminate ovarian mass at US: incremental value of second imaging test for characterization--meta-analysis and Bayesian analysis. Radiology, 236, 85-94. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2361041618
  14. Liu J, Xu Y, Wang J (2007). Ultrasonography, computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging for diagnosis of ovarian carcinoma. Eur J Radiol, 62, 328-34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2007.02.040
  15. Menon U, Gentry-Maharaj A, Hallett R, et al (2009). Sensitivity and specificity of multimodal and ultrasound screening for ovarian cancer, and stage distribution of detected cancers: results of the prevalence screen of the UK collaborative trial of ovarian cancer Screening (UKCTOCS). Lancet Oncol, 10, 327-40. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(09)70026-9
  16. Nishat B, Rodney HR, Andrea GR (2011). Ovarian cancer management: the role of imaging and diagnostic challenges. Eur J Radiol, 78, 41-511. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2010.11.039
  17. Parkin DM, Bray F, Ferlay J, Pisani P (2005). Global cancer statistics, 2002". CA Cancer J Clin, 55, 74-108. https://doi.org/10.3322/canjclin.55.2.74
  18. Pascual MA, Tresserra F, Lopez-Marin L, (2000). Role of color Doppler ultrasonography in the diagnosis of endometriotic cyst. J Ultrasound Med, 19, 695-9.
  19. Sassone AM, Timor-Tritsch IE, Artner A, Westhoff C, Warren WB (1991). Transvaginal sonographic characterization of ovarian disease: evaluation of a new scoring system to predict ovarian malignancy. Obstet Gynecol, 78, 70-6.
  20. Timmerman D, Testa AC, Bourne T, Ferrazzi E, Ameye L (2005) Logistic regression model to distinguish between the benign and malignant adnexal mass before surgery: a multicenter study by the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis Group. J Clin Oncol, 23, 8794-801. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2005.01.7632
  21. Tinkanen H, Kujansuu E (1993). Doppler ultrasound findings in tubo-ovarian infectious complex. J Clin Ultrasound, 21, 175-8. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcu.1870210305
  22. Togashi K (2003). Ovarian cancer: the clinical role of US, CT, and MRI. Eur Radiol, 13, 87-104. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03323649
  23. Van Calster B, Timmerman D, Bourne T, et al (2007). Discrimination between benign and malignant adnexal masses by specialist ultrasound examination versus serum CA-125. J Natl Cancer Inst, 99, 1706-14. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djm199
  24. van Nagell JR Jr, DePriest PD, Ueland FR, et al (2007). Ovarian cancer screening with annual transvaginal sonography: findings of 25,000 women screened. Cancer, 109, 1887-96. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.22594
  25. Zalel Y, Caspi B, Tepper R (1997). Doppler flow characteristics of dermoid cysts: unique appearance of struma ovarii. J Ultrasound Med, 16, 355-8.

Cited by

  1. IOTA Simple Rules in Differentiating between Benign and Malignant Ovarian Tumors vol.15, pp.13, 2014, https://doi.org/10.7314/APJCP.2014.15.13.5123
  2. Comparison of Neutrophil/Lymphocyte and Platelet/Lymphocyte Ratios for Predicting Malignant Potential of Suspicious Ovarian Masses in Gynecology Practice vol.15, pp.15, 2014, https://doi.org/10.7314/APJCP.2014.15.15.6239
  3. IOTA Simple Rules in Differentiating between Benign and Malignant Adnexal Masses by Non-expert Examiners vol.16, pp.9, 2015, https://doi.org/10.7314/APJCP.2015.16.9.3835
  4. Simple ultrasound examination as a diagnostic tool for malignant ovarian tumors vol.1073, pp.1742-6596, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1073/2/022017