Sonnemann MSI, Torres HVE

Language: Spanish
References: 21
Page: 41-45
PDF size: 230.33 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Introduction: The ovarian cancer has been considered as the gynecological tumor with the highest mortality in the world. Ultrasound is the first-line imaging tool that presents low costs, as well as high sensitivity and specificity in the hands of an experienced evaluator. The GI-RADS classification system has been shown to have a high sensitivity and specificity for the characterization of the adnexal masses. Objective: It is expected that with this study, we can demonstrate the high diagnostic performance of the GI-RADS classification system for the characterization of the adnexal masses, thereby unifying the radiological language and reducing treatment times by the indicated specialty depending on the GI-RADS classification, as well as avoid over saturating the services of gynecology and gynecology-oncology. Material and methods: Material: Studies carried out on ultrasonic equipment brand E10 Voluson of General Electric and Philips EnVisor, with endocavitary transducer. Methods: — Clinical and radiological records of patients with suspected adnexal lesion in which endocavitary ultrasound was decided. — Endocavitary ultrasound is performed by resident personnel and technicians in radiology and imaging training, supervised, or, reviewed by a doctor assigned as an expert in the image of women, as well as technical personnel with experience in performing gynecological sonographic studies. — The variables considered for the ultrasound technique were lesion volume, Doppler vascularity, wall thickness, and the presence of septa. — According to the obtained findings, it was subclassified according to the GI-RADS system. Information was obtained from the histopathological reports of the lesions analyzed by endocavitary ultrasound. Results: We analyzed the clinical and radiological records of 197 patients, who met the inclusion criteria, of adult women with an average age of 45.3 years, from the years from January 1, 2010 to December 31, 2016. In which the GI-RADS values showed the highest frequency in the sub group GI-RADS 3 (50.3%), followed by group 4 (29.4%), group 5 (19.8%) and finally group 2 (0.5%). The values obtained in the diagnostic test showed Sensitivity of 64.29%, Specificity 97.6%, positive predictive value of 99% and negative predictive value of 43.3%. Conclusions: Our study showed a high specificity (similar to that reported in the literature), but a limited sensitivity value which we consider is due to the lack of development of experience in the technique in our center.

REFERENCES

1. Gallardo-Rincón D, Meneses-García A, de la Garza-Salazar JG, Juárez-Sánchez P, Aguilar-Ponce JL. Cáncer de ovario epitelial. Clínicas oncológicas de Iberoamérica. México: PyDESA; 2016.

2. Timmerman D, Van Calster B, testa A et al. Predicting the risk of malignancy in adnexal masses based on the simple rules from the international ovarian tumor analysis group. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2016; 214: 424-437.

3. Levine D, Brown DL, Andreotti RF et al. Management of asymptomatic ovarian and other adnexal cysts imaged at US: Society of Radiologists in Ultrasound Consensus Conference Statement. Radiology. 2010; 256: 943-954.

4. You W, Dainty LA, Rose GS et al. Gynecologic malignancies in women aged less than 25 years. Obstet Gynecol. 2005; 105 (6): 1405-1409.

5. Caspi B, Appelman Z, Rabinerson D et al. Pathognomonic echo patterns of benign cystic teratomas of the ovary: classification, incidence and accuracy rate of sonographic diagnosis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 1996; 7: 275-279.

6. Rajarubendra N, Leang Y, Monsour M. Mullerianosis of the urinary bladder. ANZ J Surg. 2015; 85: 292-293.

7. Alcázar JL, Mercé L, Laparte C, Jurado M, López-García G. A new scoring system to differentiate benign from malignant adnexal masses. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2003; 188: 685-692.

8. American College of Radiology. ACR Appropriateness Criteria 2008: clinically suspected adnexal mass. American College of Radiology Web site. [Accessed November 9 2009] Available in: http://www.acr.org/SecondaryMainMenuCategories/quality_safety/app_criteria/pdf/ExpertPanelonWomenImaging/SuspectedAdnexalMasses-Doc11.aspx.

9. Valentin L, Ameye L, Jurkovic D et al. Which extrauterine pelvic masses are difficult to correctly classify as benign or malignant on the basis of ultrasound findings and is there a way of making a correct diagnosis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2006; 27: 438-444.

10. Patel MD. Practical approach to the adnexal mass. Radiol Clin North Am. 2006; 44: 879-899.

11. Geomini P, Kruitwagen R, Bremer GL, Cnossen J, Mol BW. The accuracy of risk scores in predicting ovarian malignancy: a systematic review. Obstet Gynecol. 2009; 113: 384-394.

12. Timmerman D, Schwärzler P, Collins WP, Claerhout F, Coenen M, Amant F, Vergote I, Bourne TH. Subjective assessment of adnexal masses with the use of ultrasonography: an analysis of interobserver variability and experience. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 1999; 13. 11-16.

13. Valentin L. Use of morphology to characterize and manage common adnexal masses. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2004; 18: 71-89.

14. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologist. ACOG Practice Bulletin. Management of adnexal masses. Obstet Gynec. 2007; 110: 201-214.

15. Valentin L. Pattern recognition of pelvic masses by gray-scale ultrasound imaging: the contribution of Doppler ultrasound. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 19999; 14: 338-347.

16. Hidalgo-Mora JJ, Rams-Llop N, Ros-Bernal F, Alcázar-Zambrano JL. Sistemas de clasificación y predicción de riesgo de malignidad de las lesiones anexiales. Clínica e Investigación en Ginecología y Obstetricia. 2018; 45 (1): 24-31.

17. Amor F, Alcázar JL, Vaccaro H, León M, Iturras A. GI-RADS reporting system for ultrasound evaluation of adnexal masses in clinical practice: a prospective multicenter study. Ultrasound Obstet Gyencol. 2011; 38: 450-455.

18. Amor F, Vaccaro H, Alcázar JL, León M, Craig JM, Martínez J. Gynecologic imaging reporting and data system: a new proposal for classifyng adnexal masses on the basis of sonographic findins. J Ultrasound Med. 2009; 28: 285-291.

19. Orozco-Fernández R, Peces-Rama A, Llanos-Llanos MC, Martínez-Mendoza A, Machado-Linde F, Nieto-Díaz A. Clinical application of the gynecologic imagning reporting and data system (GI-RADS) for the evaluation of adnexal masses. Gynecol Obstet. 2015; 1 (2): 1009.

20. Granberg S, Wikland M, Jansson I. Macroscopic characterization of ovarian tumors and the relation to the histological diagnosis: criteria to be used for ultrasound evaluation. Gyneco Oncol. 1989; 35: 139-144.

21. Rams N, Muñoz R, Soler C, Parra J. Resultados de la clasificación Gyenecologic Imaging Reporting and Data System para la catalogación de masas anexiales. Obstetricia y Ginecología. 2015; 58 (3): 125-129.