DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY OF ULTRASONOGRAPHY IN THE DIAGNOSIS OF MALIGNANCY IN ADNEXAL MASS AND ITS CORRELATION WITH HISTOPATHOLOGICAL DIAGNOSIS
Main Article Content
Keywords
Adnexal mass, malignancy, Ultrasonography, Histopathology
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To study the diagnostic accuracy of ultrasonography in the diagnosis of malignancy in adnexal mass and its correlation with histopathological diagnosis.
METHODS: This is hospital based observational study for a period of 1 year which included 133 patients of adnexal mass attending the OPD who required admission and operative intervention. All cases underwent clinical examination, ultrasonography and RMI scoring. Following surgery specimens were sent for histopathological examination and the reports were correlated with RMI scoring.
RESULT: The sonographic feature which was most prevalent among the malignant group was the presence of ascites (69.6%), closely followed by the presence of multilocularity (66.6%). Solid areas were significantly more common in malignant cases (48.84%) compared to benign cases (24.72%), with a chi-square value of 6.62 and a p-value of 0.010, indicating statistical significance. However, other features like multilocularity, bilateral involvement, ascites, and metastasis did not show statistically significant differences between benign and malignant cases, with p-values of 0.222, 0.430, 0.059, and 0.397 respectively. Evidence of metastasis in sonography of adnexal mass has the highest specificity and positive predictive value (100%) for malignancy. Presence of ascites came out to be next best predictor of malignancy. It had the sensitivity of 69.6% ,specificity of 95%, positive predictive value of 70.6% and negative predictive value of 91.8%.Presence of solid areas and bilaterality had low sensitivity and positive predictive value, but high specificity and negative predictive value for malignancy and hence, they were seen more commonly malignant mass as compared to benign mass. Overall, multilocularity was the sonographic feature which was the not a good predictor for malignancy . It was neither very sensitive ( sensitivity =66%) nor specific (specificity =48%) and had very low positive predictive value for malignancy. The presence of ascites or metastasis on ultrasound examination were significantly associated with a higher possibility of malignant adnexal mass(p <0.001).
CONCLUSION: Ultrasonography has better efficacy in diagnosing malignant from benign adnexal lesions but indeterminate lesions supplemented with advanced imaging modalities like MRI and CT Scan will enhance the diagnostic certainty and help us to plan the course of the treatment and will have better outcome.
References
2. Carballo, E.V., Maturen, K.E., Li, Z. et al. Surgical outcomes of adnexal masses classified by IOTA ultrasound simple rules. Sci Rep 12, 21848 (2022).
3. Patel MD. Pitfalls in the sonographic evaluation of adnexal masses. Ultrasound Q. 2012;28:29–40.
4. Mais V, Guerriero S, Ajossa S, Angiolucci M, Paoletti AM, Melis GB. Transvaginal ultrasonography in the diagnosis of cystic teratoma. Obstet Gynecol. 1995;85:48–52.4
5. 5.Brown DL. A practical approach to the ultrasound characterization of adnexal masses. Ultrasound Q. 2007;23:87–105.5
6. Savelli L, Ghi T, De Iaco P, Ceccaroni M, Venturoli S, Cacciatore B. Paraovarian/paratubal cysts: comparison of transvaginal sonographic and pathological findings to establish diagnostic criteria. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2006;28:330–334.6
7. Asch E, Levine D. Variations in appearance of endometriomas. J Ultrasound Med. 2007;26:993–1002. 7
8. Guerriero S, Ajossa S, Mais V, Angiolucci M, Paoletti AM, Melis GB. Role of transvaginal sonography in the diagnosis of peritoneal inclusion cysts. J Ultrasound Med. 2004;23:1193–1200.8
9. E.A. Sadowski, A.G. Rockall, K.E. Maturen, J.B. Robbins, I. Thomassin-Naggara, Adnexal lesions: Imaging strategies for ultrasound and MR imaging,Diagnostic and Interventional Imaging,Volume 100, Issue 10,2019,Pages 635-646,ISSN 2211-5684.
10. Di Legge, A., Pollastri, P., Mancari, R., Ludovisi, M., Mascilini, F., Franchi, D., Jurkovic, D., Coccia, M.E., Timmerman, D., Scambia, G., Testa, A. and Valentin, L. (2017), Clinical and ultrasound characteristics of surgically removed adnexal lesions with largest diameter ≤ 2.5 cm: a pictorial essay. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol, 50: 648-656.
11. Pereira, P.N., Sarian, L.O., Yoshida, A. et al. Improving the performance of IOTA simple rules: sonographic assessment of adnexal masses with resource-effective use of a magnetic resonance scoring (ADNEX MR scoring system). Abdom Radiol 45, 3218–3229 (2020).
12. van Nagell J, DePriest P, Reedy M, et al. The efficacy of transvaginal sonographic screening in asymptomatic women at risk for ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2000
13. Smorgick N, Maymon R. Assessment of adnexal masses using ultrasound: a practical review. Int J Womens Health. 2014 Sep 23;6:857-63. doi: 10.2147/IJWH.S47075. PMID: 25285023; PMCID: PMC4181738.
14. Brown DL, Doubilet PM, Miller FH, Frates MC, Laing FC, DiSalvo DN, Benson CB, Lerner MH. Benign and malignant ovarian masses: selection of the most discriminating gray-scale and Doppler sonographic features. Radiology. 1998 Jul;208(1):103-10. doi: 10.1148/radiology.208.1.9646799. PMID: 9646799.
15. Dodge JE, Covens AL, Lacchetti C, et al. Preoperative identification of a suspicious adnexal mass: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Gynecol Oncol. 2012;126(1):157–166.
16. 16.Pateman K., Moro F., Mavrelos D., Foo X., Hoo W.L., Jurkovic D. Natural history of ovarian endometrioma in pregnancy. BMC Women’s Health. 2014;14:128. doi: 10.1186/1472-6874-14-128.
17. Nunes N., Ambler G., Foo X., Naftalin J., Widschwendter M., Jurkovic D. Use of IOTA simple rules for diagnosis of ovarian cancer: Meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 2014;44:503–514. doi: 10.1002/uog.13437.
18. Russell DJ. The female pelvic mass: Diagnosis and management. Med Clin North Am. 1995;79:1481-93.
19. 19. Andolf E, Svalenius E, Astedt B. Ultrasonography for early detection of ovarian carcinoma. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1986;93:1286-9.
Article Sidebar
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
All articles published in JPTCP are licensed under Copyright Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Dr Avaneesh
Assistantprofessor, department of obstetrics and gynaecology, MRAMC Ambedkar Nagar
Dr Sachin Siddu
Assistant professor, department of Obstetrics and gynaecology, MRAMC Ambedkar Nagar
Dr Hena Saiyda
Associateprofessor, department of obstetrics and gynaecology, MRAMC Ambedkar Nagar