medigraphic.com
ISSN 1561-3062 (Electronic)

2012, Number 3

<< Back Next >>

Revista Cubana de Obstetricia y Ginecología 2012; 38 (3)

Value of ultrasound in the diagnosis of adnexal masses

Clavijo RT, Lugones BM, Guevara AL, Berlán LN

Language: Spanish
References: 18
Page:
PDF size: 59.53 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Introduction: the use of imaging techniques has shifted the focus on the management of many conditions in medicine.
Objective: to determine the value of ultrasound in the diagnosis of adnexal masses and to correlate it with pathologic findings.
Methods: a descriptive longitudinal study was performed to 92 women between 1 January 1st, 2008 to January 1st, 2010 with the diagnosis of adnexal masses by ultrasound. Patients were selected in consultation with the objective of getting information of different variables: size of adnexal masses, echogenicity, wall and contour thickness, vascularization with Doppler technique and correlation between sonographic and histopathologic diagnosis. The histological samples were processed from surgical specimens in the patients treated.
Results: benign and malignant tumors usually were more than 5 cm, 13.04 % and 23.9 % respectively, the complex appearance of adnexal masses dominated and there were malignant ovarian tumors in 20 patients (74.4 %), which contributed the largest percentage; regular contours predominated in benign ovarian tumors and pseudotumoral lesions whereas malignant tumors showed irregular contours (25 %). Malignant tumors showed increased center vascularization in 24 patients (88.8 % of cases).
Conclusions: the ultrasound studies of adnexal masses allow specifying the benign or malignant diagnosis. There is a high correlation between ultrasound and histological diagnosis.


REFERENCES

  1. Pérez EM. Ginecología Oncológica Pelviana. [sitio en infomed] [citado 31 Dic 2011]. Disponible en: http://bvs.sld.cu/libros/ginecologia_oncologicapelviana/indice_p.htm

  2. Mauricio A, Cuello F, Cristian Pomes C. Tumor ovárico en la postmenopausia. Consideraciones sobre su manejo actual. Rev Chil Obstet Ginecol. 2003;68(2):97.

  3. Primo W, Pereira QS, Primo G, Rodríguez P. Tumores ovarianos. Femina. 2004;32(5):415-20.

  4. Valls PO, Parrilla DME. Atlas de Ultrasonido Diagnóstico. La Habana: Editorial Científico Técnica; 1982.

  5. Catalán A, Saiz D, Corvalán J, Masoli D, Vázquez V. Manejo laparoscópico de masas anexiales: experiencia local. Rev Chil Obstet Ginecol. 2005;70(4):231-5.

  6. Mazzotti de Oliveira FCM, Marussi EF, Cralos ZL, Fonseca PM. Correlacao entre as caracteristicas ultrasonograficas e o diagnostico histologico de 446 tumores ovarianos. Rev Assoc Med Bras. 2006;52(3).

  7. Yazbek J, Raju KS, Ben-Nagi J, Holland T, Hillaby K, Jurkovic D. Accuracy of ultrasound subjective "pattern recognition" for the diagnosis of borderline ovariantumors. Ultrasound Obstet Gynaecol. 2007;29(5):489-95.

  8. Ison Gnone L, Nakraseive TA, Cputo RR, Barakat, Harlap S. Symptoms of ovarian cancer. Obstet Gynecol. 2007;98:212-17.

  9. Erdogan N, Ozcelik B .Doppler ultrasound assessment and serum cancer antigen 125 in the diagnosis of ovarian tumors. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2005;91(2):146-50.

  10. Exacoustos C, Romanini ME, Rinaldo D, Amoroso C, Szabolcs B, Zupi E, et al. Preoperativesonographic features of borderline ovarian tumors. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2006;25:50-9.

  11. Canto MJ, Martínez JM, Puerto B, Ojuel J, Puig- Tintoré M, Vanrell JA. Caracterización preoperatoria de las tumoraciones de ovario mediante ecografía, Doppler y determinación sérica de CA125. Estudio comparativo. Prog Obstet Ginecol. 2001;44:205-15.

  12. Geomini. P, Kluivers K, Moret E, Bremer G, Kruitwagen R, Mol B. Evaluation of adnexal masses with three-dimensional ultrasonography. Obstet Gynecol. 2006;108:1167-75.

  13. Colombo N. Ovarian Cancer. Critical Rev in Oncol/Hematol. 2006;60:159-79.

  14. Valentín L, Ameye L, Jurkovic D, Metzger U, Lecuru F, Van Huffel S, et al. Which extrauterine pelvic masses are difficult to correctly classify as benign ormalignant on the basis of ultrasound findings and is there a way of making a correct diagnosis? Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2006;27(4):438-44.

  15. Choudhury S, Mohiuddin AS, Ahmed AU, Ahsan S. Preoperative discrimination of benign and malignant ovarian tumors using Color Doppler sonography and its correlationwith histopathology. Gynecol Oncology. 2005;31(1):21-6.

  16. Boohla S, Hoskins WJ. Diagnisis and management of epithelial ovarian cancer Obstet. Gynecol. 2006;107:1399-410.

  17. Erdogan N, Ozcelik B .Doppler ultrasound assessment and serum cancer antigen 125 in the diagnosis of ovarian tumors. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2005;91(2):146-50.

  18. Bahamondes A, Aguilera PS, Quiroz VL, Zúñiga IL, Rodríguez AJG. Ultrasonido en el diagnóstico de masas anexiales. [consultado 11 Ene 2012]. Disponible en: http://www.cerpo.cl/_admin/_items/File_002_0055_005.pdf




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com