ULTRASONOGRAPHICAL AND HISTOPATHOLOGICAL DIAGNOSIS OF FEMALE PELVIC MASSES AND ITS CLINICAL IMPORTANCE IN A TEACHING HOSPITALS
Main Article Content
Keywords
Ultrasonography, Radiology, Pelvic Pain, Infertility, Amenorrhea,menorrhagia
Abstract
Background and Objectives: he objective of this current study was to assess the ultrasonographic characteristics of pelvic masses and establish correlations with histopathological diagnoses in patients who underwent surgical intervention.
Materials and Methods: A crosssectional prospective study was conducted in the Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, and Radiology The study cohort comprised 113 female patients who presented with symptoms indicative of pelvic masses. The final diagnoses were subsequently correlated with histopathological findings, with the cytohistopathology diagnosis considered definitive. Results: A total of 113 female patients underwent ultrasonography (USG) scans, in concurrence with a clinical history and examination of pelvic masses. The predominant age group was 40-50 years. The most frequently reported chief complaint among the female patients in our study was pelvic pain followed by a combination of pain and palpable mass. Menstrual irregularities, menorrhagia, post-menopausal bleeding, infertility, and amenorrhea were among the less common complaints presented by female patients in our study.
Conclusion: Ultrasonography emerges as the foremost imaging modality for evaluating gynaecological masses. Proper differentiation between gynaecological and non-gynaecological masses on sonographic assessment is vital for precise patient management.
Materials and Methods: A crosssectional prospective study was conducted in the Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, and Radiology The study cohort comprised 113 female patients who presented with symptoms indicative of pelvic masses. The final diagnoses were subsequently correlated with histopathological findings, with the cytohistopathology diagnosis considered definitive. Results: A total of 113 female patients underwent ultrasonography (USG) scans, in concurrence with a clinical history and examination of pelvic masses. The predominant age group was 40-50 years. The most frequently reported chief complaint among the female patients in our study was pelvic pain followed by a combination of pain and palpable mass. Menstrual irregularities, menorrhagia, post-menopausal bleeding, infertility, and amenorrhea were among the less common complaints presented by female patients in our study.
Conclusion: Ultrasonography emerges as the foremost imaging modality for evaluating gynaecological masses. Proper differentiation between gynaecological and non-gynaecological masses on sonographic assessment is vital for precise patient management.
References
1. Mascilini F, Savelli L, Scifo MC, Exacoustos C, Timor‐Tritsch IE, De Blasis I, Moruzzi MC, Pasciuto T, Scambia G, Valentin L, Testa AC. Ovarian masses with papillary projections diagnosed and removed during pregnancy: ultrasound features and histological diagnosis. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology. 2017 Jul;50(1):116-23.
2. Pillai SS. Clinicopathological spectrum of gynecological pelvic masses: a cross-sectional study. Int J Reprod Contracept Obstet Gynecol. 2017 May 1;6(5):1915.
3. Tripathi P, Singh D, Bagul M. Ultrasonography study of gynecological pelvic masses. Int Res J Clin Med. 2016;1(4):1-6.
4. Valentin L, Ameye L, Savelli L, Fruscio R, Leone FP, Czekierdowski A, Lissoni AA, Fischerova D, Guerriero S, Van Holsbeke C, Van Huffel S. Adnexal masses difficult to classify as benign or malignant using subjective
1. assessment of gray‐scale and Doppler ultrasound findings: logistic regression models do not help. Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology. 2011 Oct;38(4):456-65.
5. Timmerman D, Ameye L, Fischerova D, Epstein E, Melis GB, Guerriero S, Van Holsbeke C, Savelli L, Fruscio R, Lissoni AA, Testa AC. Simple ultrasound rules to distinguish between benign and malignant adnexal masses before surgery: prospective validation by IOTA group. Bmj. 2010 Dec 14;341.
6. Van Calster B, Van Hoorde K, Valentin L, Testa AC, Fischerova D, Van Holsbeke C, Savelli L, Franchi D, Epstein E, Kaijser J, Van Belle V. Evaluating the risk of ovarian cancer before surgery using the ADNEX model to differentiate between benign, borderline, early and advanced stage invasive, and secondary metastatic tumours: prospective multicentre diagnostic study. Bmj. 2014 Oct 15;349.
7. Smorgick N, Maymon R. Assessment of adnexal masses using ultrasound: a practical review. International journal of women's health. 2014 Sep 23;6:857-63.
8. Patel MD. Pitfalls in the sonographic evaluation of adnexal masses. Ultrasound Quarterly. 2012 Mar 1;28(1):29-40.
9. Male B, Rasmi JC, Reddy RJ, Reddy CK, Reddy KR. To evaluate the sonographic morphology of pelvic masses and to correlate with the histopathological diagnosis of the patients who underwent surgical intervention. Journal of Pharmaceutical Negative Results. 2022;13(Special Issue 10):1597-1607.
10. Liu J, Xu Y, Wang J. Ultrasonography, computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging for diagnosis of ovarian carcinoma. European journal of radiology. 2007 Jun 1;62(3):328-34.
11. Kurman RJ, Shih Ie M. The origin and pathogenesis of epithelial ovarian cancer: a proposed unifying theory. Am J Surg Pathol. 2010; 34(3):433-43.
12. Finkler NJ, Benacerraf B, Lavin PT, Wojciechowski C, Knapp RC. Comparison of serum CA 125, clinical impression, and ultrasound in the preoperative evaluation of ovarian masses. Obstet Gynecol. 1988; 72(4):659-64.
13. Lerner JP, Timor-Tritsch IE, Federman A, Abramovich G. Transvaginal ultrasonographic characterization of ovarian masses with an improved, weighted scoring system. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1994; 170(1 Pt 1):81-5.
14. Walsh JW, Taylor KJ, Wasson JF, Schwartz PE, Rosenfield AT. Gray-scale ultrasound in 204 proved gynecologic masses: accuracy and specific diagnostic criteria. Radiology. 1979 Feb;130(2):391-7.
15. Sakhel K, Abuhamad A. Sonography of adenomyosis. Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine. 2012 May;31(5):805-8.
16. Bergeron C, Amant F, Ferenczy A. Pathology and physiopathology of adenomyosis. Best practice & research Clinical obstetrics & gynaecology. 2006 Aug 1;20(4):511-21.
17. BEZJIAN AA, CARRETERO MM. Ultrasonic evaluation of pelvic masses in pregnancy. Clinical Obstetrics and Gynecology. 1977 Jun 1;20(2):325-38.
18. Kinkel K, Hricak H, Lu Y, Tsuda K, Filly RA. US characterization of ovarian masses: a meta-analysis. Radiology. 2000 Dec;217(3):803-11.
19. Lawson TL. Ectopic pregnancy: criteria and accuracy of ultrasonic diagnosis. American Journal of Roentgenology. 1978 Jul 1;131(1):153-6.
20. Fleischer AC. Differential diagnosis of pelvic masses by gray scale sonography. Am. Jr. of Roentology.1978; 131:469-76.
21. Walsh JW, Taylor KJ, Wasson JF, Schwartz PE, Rosenfield AT. Gray-scale ultrasound in 204 proved gynecologic masses: accuracy and specific diagnostic criteria. Radiology. 1979 Feb;130(2):391-7.
22. Eze JC, Ugwu AC, Ohagwu CC. The value of ultrasonography in the diagnosis of leiomyomas in Southeast Nigeria. J Asian Scient Res. 2013;3(2):151-6.
2. Pillai SS. Clinicopathological spectrum of gynecological pelvic masses: a cross-sectional study. Int J Reprod Contracept Obstet Gynecol. 2017 May 1;6(5):1915.
3. Tripathi P, Singh D, Bagul M. Ultrasonography study of gynecological pelvic masses. Int Res J Clin Med. 2016;1(4):1-6.
4. Valentin L, Ameye L, Savelli L, Fruscio R, Leone FP, Czekierdowski A, Lissoni AA, Fischerova D, Guerriero S, Van Holsbeke C, Van Huffel S. Adnexal masses difficult to classify as benign or malignant using subjective
1. assessment of gray‐scale and Doppler ultrasound findings: logistic regression models do not help. Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology. 2011 Oct;38(4):456-65.
5. Timmerman D, Ameye L, Fischerova D, Epstein E, Melis GB, Guerriero S, Van Holsbeke C, Savelli L, Fruscio R, Lissoni AA, Testa AC. Simple ultrasound rules to distinguish between benign and malignant adnexal masses before surgery: prospective validation by IOTA group. Bmj. 2010 Dec 14;341.
6. Van Calster B, Van Hoorde K, Valentin L, Testa AC, Fischerova D, Van Holsbeke C, Savelli L, Franchi D, Epstein E, Kaijser J, Van Belle V. Evaluating the risk of ovarian cancer before surgery using the ADNEX model to differentiate between benign, borderline, early and advanced stage invasive, and secondary metastatic tumours: prospective multicentre diagnostic study. Bmj. 2014 Oct 15;349.
7. Smorgick N, Maymon R. Assessment of adnexal masses using ultrasound: a practical review. International journal of women's health. 2014 Sep 23;6:857-63.
8. Patel MD. Pitfalls in the sonographic evaluation of adnexal masses. Ultrasound Quarterly. 2012 Mar 1;28(1):29-40.
9. Male B, Rasmi JC, Reddy RJ, Reddy CK, Reddy KR. To evaluate the sonographic morphology of pelvic masses and to correlate with the histopathological diagnosis of the patients who underwent surgical intervention. Journal of Pharmaceutical Negative Results. 2022;13(Special Issue 10):1597-1607.
10. Liu J, Xu Y, Wang J. Ultrasonography, computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging for diagnosis of ovarian carcinoma. European journal of radiology. 2007 Jun 1;62(3):328-34.
11. Kurman RJ, Shih Ie M. The origin and pathogenesis of epithelial ovarian cancer: a proposed unifying theory. Am J Surg Pathol. 2010; 34(3):433-43.
12. Finkler NJ, Benacerraf B, Lavin PT, Wojciechowski C, Knapp RC. Comparison of serum CA 125, clinical impression, and ultrasound in the preoperative evaluation of ovarian masses. Obstet Gynecol. 1988; 72(4):659-64.
13. Lerner JP, Timor-Tritsch IE, Federman A, Abramovich G. Transvaginal ultrasonographic characterization of ovarian masses with an improved, weighted scoring system. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1994; 170(1 Pt 1):81-5.
14. Walsh JW, Taylor KJ, Wasson JF, Schwartz PE, Rosenfield AT. Gray-scale ultrasound in 204 proved gynecologic masses: accuracy and specific diagnostic criteria. Radiology. 1979 Feb;130(2):391-7.
15. Sakhel K, Abuhamad A. Sonography of adenomyosis. Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine. 2012 May;31(5):805-8.
16. Bergeron C, Amant F, Ferenczy A. Pathology and physiopathology of adenomyosis. Best practice & research Clinical obstetrics & gynaecology. 2006 Aug 1;20(4):511-21.
17. BEZJIAN AA, CARRETERO MM. Ultrasonic evaluation of pelvic masses in pregnancy. Clinical Obstetrics and Gynecology. 1977 Jun 1;20(2):325-38.
18. Kinkel K, Hricak H, Lu Y, Tsuda K, Filly RA. US characterization of ovarian masses: a meta-analysis. Radiology. 2000 Dec;217(3):803-11.
19. Lawson TL. Ectopic pregnancy: criteria and accuracy of ultrasonic diagnosis. American Journal of Roentgenology. 1978 Jul 1;131(1):153-6.
20. Fleischer AC. Differential diagnosis of pelvic masses by gray scale sonography. Am. Jr. of Roentology.1978; 131:469-76.
21. Walsh JW, Taylor KJ, Wasson JF, Schwartz PE, Rosenfield AT. Gray-scale ultrasound in 204 proved gynecologic masses: accuracy and specific diagnostic criteria. Radiology. 1979 Feb;130(2):391-7.
22. Eze JC, Ugwu AC, Ohagwu CC. The value of ultrasonography in the diagnosis of leiomyomas in Southeast Nigeria. J Asian Scient Res. 2013;3(2):151-6.
Article Sidebar
Published
Oct 15, 2017
Article Details
How to Cite
Dr. Tinaimeiru Golmei, & Dr. Kodithyala Raghavendar Babu. (2017). ULTRASONOGRAPHICAL AND HISTOPATHOLOGICAL DIAGNOSIS OF FEMALE PELVIC MASSES AND ITS CLINICAL IMPORTANCE IN A TEACHING HOSPITALS. Journal of Population Therapeutics and Clinical Pharmacology, 24(3), 32-37. https://doi.org/10.53555/rd7sxk91
Section
Articles
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.
Author Biographies
Dr. Tinaimeiru Golmei
Assistant Professor, Department of Radiology, Maheshwara Medical College and Hospital, Hyderabad
Dr. Kodithyala Raghavendar Babu
Assistant Professor, Department of Radiology, Maheshwara Medical College and Hospital, Hyderabad
How to Cite
Dr. Tinaimeiru Golmei, & Dr. Kodithyala Raghavendar Babu. (2017). ULTRASONOGRAPHICAL AND HISTOPATHOLOGICAL DIAGNOSIS OF FEMALE PELVIC MASSES AND ITS CLINICAL IMPORTANCE IN A TEACHING HOSPITALS. Journal of Population Therapeutics and Clinical Pharmacology, 24(3), 32-37. https://doi.org/10.53555/rd7sxk91