Adnexal lesions in post-menopausal women: A radiopathological correlation

Jayakumar, Jayakrishnan; Shanker, Swathy; T, Shriram; Kailash, Nishi; VR, Rajendran

doi:10.61186/rabms.10.3.266

Volume 10, Issue 3 (7-2024) Journal of Research in Applied and Basic Medical Sciences 2024, 10(3): 266-278 | Back to browse issues page

‎ 10.61186/rabms.10.3.266

Mendeley

Zotero

RefWorks

Jayakumar J, Shanker S, T S, Kailash N, VR R. Adnexal lesions in post-menopausal women: A radiopathological correlation. Journal of Research in Applied and Basic Medical Sciences 2024; 10 (3) :266-278
URL: http://ijrabms.umsu.ac.ir/article-1-345-en.html

Adnexal lesions in post-menopausal women: A radiopathological correlation

Jayakrishnan Jayakumar

, Swathy Shanker ^*

, Shriram T

, Nishi Kailash

, Rajendran VR

Department of Radiology, KMCT Medical College, Mukkam, Kerala, India , swathyshanker.ss@gmail.com

Abstract: (337 Views)

Background & Aims: Ovarian cancers are increasing in incidence, and an accurate ultrasonographic diagnosis, along with a complete physical examination and history taking, is essential for prompt diagnosis and early reporting.
In this study, we aimed to evaluate the efficacy of ultrasonography (USG) in identifying ovarian lesions using histopathology as the gold standard.
Materials & Methods: This was a retrospective study conducted by evaluating the reports of patients in the menopausal age group who had undergone total hysterectomy or oophorectomy. Histopathological diagnoses were retrieved from the Department of Pathology, and ultrasonographic (USG) reports were obtained from the patients' medical records.
Results: This study included the histopathological and ultrasonographic reports of 239 women, of which 95.4% of cases were benign, while borderline lesions and malignant lesions constituted 3.3% and 1.3%, respectively. USG showed sensitivities of 93.55%, 66.7%, and 33% in identifying benign, borderline, and malignant lesions, respectively. Specificities of 91.67%, 91.84%, and 99.46% were noted in classifying ovarian lesions as benign, borderline, and malignant, respectively.
Conclusion: Ultrasonography (USG) remains an important imaging tool for the early diagnosis of ovarian lesions, and a standardized reporting protocol should be implemented in every institution to increase the accuracy of USG and to reduce the inter-observer variability commonly encountered in ultrasound.

Keywords: Cysts, Ovarian, Ultrasonography, Malignant

Full-Text [PDF 366 kb] (78 Downloads)

Type of Study: orginal article | Subject: Medical Imaging

References

1. Gangane NM, Patil BU, Ghongade PV. Ovarian cancer: A report from population-based cancer registry at central rural India. Journal of Cancer Research and Therapeutics 19(Suppl 2):S857-S862. DOI: 10.4103/jcrt.jcrt_1426_22. [DOI:10.4103/jcrt.jcrt_1426_22] [PMID]

2. Rajavigneshwari N, Kotasthane DS, Koteeswaran G. Clinicopathological spectrum of ovarian tumours in a tertiary care hospital. J Evol Med Dent Sci 2017 May 4;6(36):2948-52. [DOI:10.14260/Jemds/2017/635]

3. Mathur P, Sathishkumar K, Chaturvedi M, Das P, Sudarshan KL, Vinodh N, John A, Narasimhan S, Roselind FS. Cancer statistics, 2020: report from national cancer registry programme. India JCO Global Oncol 6:1063-75. https://doi.org/10.1200/GO.20.00122 [DOI:10.1200/GO.20.00122.] [PMID] []

4. Sathishkumar K, Chaturvedi M, Das P, Stephen S, Mathur P. Cancer incidence estimates for 2022 & projection for 2025: result from national cancer registry programme. Indian J Med Res. 2022. https://doi.org/10.4103/ijmr.ijmr_1821_22 [DOI:10.4103/ijmr.ijmr_1821_22.] [PMID] []

5. Wheeler V, Umstead B, Chadwick C. Adnexal Masses: Diagnosis and Management. Am Fam Physician 108(6):580-587, 2023. PMID: 38215419. [GOOGLE SCHOLAR]

6. Chen VW, Ruiz B, Killeen JL, Coté TR, Wu XC, Correa CN. Pathology and classification of ovarian tumors. Cancer 97:2631-2642, 2003. [DOI:10.1002/cncr.11345] [PMID]

7. Mondal SK, Banyopadhayay R, Nag DR, Roychowdhury S, Mondal PK, Sinha SK. Histologic pattern, bilaterality and clinical evaluation of 957 ovarian neoplasms: a10 year study in a tertiary hospital of eastern India. J Cancer Res Ther 7(4):433-7, 2011. [DOI:10.4103/0973-1482.92011] [PMID]

8. Radhamani S, Akhila MV. Evaluation of Adnexal Masses-Correlation of clinical, sonological and histopathological findings in adnexal masses. Int J Sci Stud 4(11):88-92, 2017. [GOOGLE SCHOLAR]

9. Javadi S, Ganeshan DM, Qayyum A, Iyer RB, Bhosale P. Ovarian cancer, the revised FIGO staging system, and the role of imaging. Am J Roentgenol 206(6):1351-60, 2016. [DOI:10.2214/AJR.15.15199] [PMID]

10. Khurana I, Satia MN. Preoperative evaluation of ovarian masses with color Doppler and its correlation with pathological finding. Int J Reprod Contracept Obstet Gynecol 5(7):2084-2092, 2016. [DOI:10.18203/2320-1770.ijrcog20161895]

11. Ovadia J, Goldman GA. Ovarian masses in postmenopausal women. Int J Gynaecol 39(1):35-9, 1992. [DOI:10.1016/0020-7292(92)90777-G] [PMID]

12. Jacobs I, Prys Davies A, Bridges J, Stabile I, Fay T, Lower A, Grudzinskas JG, Oram D. Prevalence screening for ovarian cancer in postmenopausal women by CA 125 measurement and ultrasonography. BMJ 306:1030-1034, 1993. [DOI:10.1136/bmj.306.6884.1030] [PMID] []

13. Paes MF, Daltoé RD, Madeira KP et al. A retrospective analysis of clinicopathological and prognostic characteristics of ovarian tumors in the State of Espírito Santo, Brazil. J Ovarian Res 4:14, 2011. https://doi.org/10.1186/1757-2215-4-14 [DOI:10.1186/1757-2215-4-14.] [PMID] []

14. He P, Wang JJ, Duan W, Song C, Yang Y, Wu QQ. Estimating the risk of malignancy of adnexal masses: validation of the ADNEX model in the hands of nonexpert ultrasonographers in a gynaecological oncology centre in China. J Ovarian Res 14(1):169, 2021. [DOI:10.1186/s13048-021-00922-w] [PMID] []

15. Mondal SK, Banyopadhayay R, Nag DR, Roychowdhury S, Mondal PK, Sinha SK. Histologic pattern, bilaterality and clinical evaluation of 957 ovarian neoplasms: a10 year study in a tertiary hospital of eastern India. J Cancer Res Ther 7(4):433-7, 2011. [DOI:10.4103/0973-1482.92011] [PMID]

16. Rajavigneshwari N et al. Clinicopathological spectrum of ovarian tumours in a tertiary care hospital. Journal of evolution of Medical and Dental Sciences 6(36):2948, 2017. [DOI:10.14260/Jemds/2017/635]

17. Soumini G et al. Int J Reprod Contracept Obstet Gynecol 4(4):982-989, 2015.

18. Gangane NM, Patil BU, Ghongade PV. Ovarian cancer: A report from population-based cancer registry at central rural India. Journal of Cancer Research and Therapeutics 19(Suppl 2):S857-S862. DOI: 10.4103/jcrt.jcrt_1426_22. [DOI:10.4103/jcrt.jcrt_1426_22] [PMID]

19. Khalaf LMR, Desoky HHM, Seifeldein GS et al. Sonographic and Doppler predictors of malignancy in ovarian lesions. Egypt J Radiol Nucl Med 51:44, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1186/s43055-020-00172-8 [DOI:10.1186/s43055-020-00172-8.]

20. Brown DL, Doubilet PM, Miller FH, Frates MC, Laing FC, DiSalvo DN et al. Benign and malignant ovarian masses: selection of the most discriminating gray-scale and Doppler sonographic features. Radiol 208(1):103-110, 1998. [DOI:10.1148/radiology.208.1.9646799] [PMID]

21. Herrmann JU, Locher GWGA. Sonographic patterns of ovarian tumors: prediction of malignancy. Obstet Gynecol 69(5):777-781, 1987. [GOOGLE SCHOLAR]

22. Valentin L, Sladkevicius PMK. Limited contribution of Doppler velocimetry to the differential diagnosis of extrauterine pelvic tumors. Obstet Gynecol 83(3):425-433, 1994. [GOOGLE SCHOLAR]

23. Khurana I, Satia MN. Preoperative evaluation of ovarian masses with color Doppler and its correlation with pathological finding. Int J Reprod Contracept Obstet Gynecol 5(7):2084-2092, 2016. [DOI:10.18203/2320-1770.ijrcog20161895]

24. Granberg S, Wikland MJI. Macroscopic characterization of ovarian tumors and the relation to the histological diagnosis: criteria to be used for ultrasound evaluation. Gynecol Oncol 35(2):139-144, 1989. [DOI:10.1016/0090-8258(89)90031-0] [PMID]

25. Timmerman D, Van Calster B, Testa AC et al. Ovarian cancer prediction in adnexal masses using ultrasound-based logistic regression models: a temporal and external validation study by the IOTA group. Ultrasound Obs Gynecol 36:226, 2010. [DOI:10.1002/uog.7636] [PMID]

26. Expert Panel on Women's Imaging, Atri M, Alabousi A, et al. ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Clinically Suspected Adnexal Mass, No Acute Symptoms. J Am Coll Radiol 16:S77-93, 2019. [DOI:10.1016/j.jacr.2019.02.011] [PMID]

27. Timmerman D, Valentin L, Bourne TH, et al. Terms, definitions and measurements to describe the sonographic features of adnexal tumors: a consensus opinion from the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis (IOTA) Group. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 16:500-5, 2000. [DOI:10.1046/j.1469-0705.2000.00287.x] [PMID]

28. Rabail H, Shafaq A, Abid H, Sualeha U, Radha, Ekta et al. Diagnostic Accuracy Of Ultrasound In Differentiating Ovarian Neoplasm, By Taking Histopathology As Gold Standard. Journal Of Population Therapeutics And Clinical Pharmacology 31(1):334-344, 2024. Doi: 10.53555/Jptcp.V31i1.4001. [DOI:10.53555/jptcp.v31i1.4001]

29. Varras M. Benefits and limitations of ultrasonographic evaluation of uterine adnexal lesions in early detection of ovarian cancer. Clin Exp Obstet Gynecol 31:85-98, 2004. [GOOGLE SCHOLAR]

30. Kurjak A, Predanic M. New scoring system for prediction of ovarian malignancy based on transvaginal color Doppler sonography. J Ultrasound Med 11:631-638, 1992. [DOI:10.7863/jum.1992.11.12.631] [PMID]