A A retrospective observational study in assesment of role of sonography in adnexal masses and its histopathological correlation in tertiary care centre.
Main Article Content
Abstract
Background- Adnexal masses (masses of the ovary, fallopian tube, or surrounding tissues) commonly are encountered by obstetrician–gynaecologist and often present diagnostic and management dilemmas. Types of adnexal mass ranges from benign ovarian and non-ovarian to primary and secondary malignant ovarian masses. Although most adnexal masses are benign, the main goal of the diagnostic evaluation is to exclude malignancy. Transvaginal ultrasonography remains the gold standard for evaluation of adnexal masses.
The management of the adnexal masses varies according to age at presentation, whether benign or malignant, acute emergency or chronic presentation.
Aim- The study aimed to determine the causes of adnexal masses and correlation of ultrasonographic and histopathologic findings of the adnexal masses.
Methods- This is a retrospective observational study, performed in the Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, in tertiary care hospital. Operative and demographic details of patients operated for adnexal masses over a period of one year was obtained from case records of patient.
Results- Among 90 cases studied, 86.66%(78) cases of adnexal masses was of ovarian origin followed by 11.66%(7) was of tubal origin.
Among 90 cases of adnexal masses, 91.11%(82) cases were benign , 4.44%(4) were of borderline and malignant.
Most common ovarian cause of adnexal mass was endometriotic cyst(22.22%) followed by serous cyst adenoma(20%) The highest sensitivity was found for follicular cyst (87.5%) followed by dermoid and serous cyst adenoma (83.33%).
Malignancy was found in 8 cases among which 6 were correctly reported by USG resulting in sensitivity of 75%.
Conclusion- It was concluded from the current study findings that sonography was primary modality and best screening tool for evaluation of pelvic masses. Ultrasound has high sensitivity for correctly diagnosing benign versus malignant pelvic lesions. Sonography was observed to be best modality to differentiate between solid and cystic pelvic masses.
Article Details
The Medical Research Archives grants authors the right to publish and reproduce the unrevised contribution in whole or in part at any time and in any form for any scholarly non-commercial purpose with the condition that all publications of the contribution include a full citation to the journal as published by the Medical Research Archives.
References
2. Linda Van Le, Handa VL. Te Linde’s Operative Gynecology. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2023.
3. Biggs WS, Marks ST. Diagnosis and Management of Adnexal Masses. Am Fam Physician. 2016;93(8):676-681.
4. Patel MD. Practical approach to the adnexal mass. Radiol Clin North Am. 2006;44( 6):879-899. doi:10.1016/j.rcl.2006.10.016
5. Bullock B, Larkin L, Turker L, Stampler K. Management of the Adnexal Mass: Considerations for the Family Medicine Physician. Front Med (Lausanne). 2022;9:9135 49. Published 2022 Jul 5. doi:10.3389/fmed.2 022.913549
6. Van Holsbeke C, Daemen A, Yazbek J, et al. Ultrasound experience substantially impacts on diagnostic performance and confidence when adnexal masses are classified using pattern recognition. Gynecol Obstet Invest. 2010;69(3):160-168. doi:10.11 59/000265012
7. Levine D, Patel MD, Suh-Burgmann EJ, et al. Simple Adnexal Cysts: SRU Consensus Conference Update on Follow-up and Reporting. Radiology. 2019; 293(2):359-371. doi:10.1148/radiol.2019191354
8. Dunton CJ, Hutchcraft ML, Bullock RG, Northrop LE, Ueland FR. Salvaging Detection of Early-Stage Ovarian Malignancies When CA125 Is Not Informative. Diagnostics (Basel). 2021;11 (8):1440. Published 2021 Aug 10. doi: 10.3390/diagnostics11081440
9. Asch E, Levine D, Kim Y, Hecht JL. Histologic, surgical, and imaging correlations of adnexal masses. J Ultrasound Med. 2008;2 7(3):327-342. doi:10.7863/jum.2008.27.3.327
10. Myers ER, Bastian LA, Havrilesky LJ, et al. Management of adnexal mass. Evid Rep Technol Assess (Full Rep). 2006;(130):1-145
11. Brown DL, Dudiak KM, Laing FC. Adnexal masses: US characterization and reporting. Radiology. 2010;254(2):342-354. doi:10.1148 /radiol.09090552
12. Dr.Monika Anant, Dr. Khushboo, Dr. Nutan Raj, Dr. Neelu Yadav, Dr. Hemali H Sinha. Evaluation of adnexal masses: A correlation of clinical, ultrasound and histopathological findings. Int J Clin Obstet Gynaecol 2020;4(5):40-44. DOI: 10.33545/gy nae.2020.v4.i5a.681
13. Thomassin-Naggara I, Poncelet E, Jalaguier-Coudray A, et al. Ovarian-Adnexal Reporting Data System Magnetic Resonance Imaging (O-RADS MRI) Score for Risk Stratification of Sonographically Indeterminate Adnexal Masses. JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3(1 ):e1919896. Published 2020 Jan 3. doi:10.100 1/jamanetworkopen.2019.19896
14. Iyer VR, Lee SI. MRI, CT, and PET/CT for ovarian cancer detection and adnexal lesion characterization. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2010; 194(2):311-321. doi:10.2214/AJR.09.3522
15. Yashi, Singh S. Correlation of ultrasound findings with histopathology of pelvic masses in a tertiary care hospital. Int J Health Sci Res. 2019; 9(1):46-52.
16. Givens V, Mitchell GE, Harraway-Smith C, Reddy A, Maness DL. Diagnosis and management of adnexal masses. Am Fam Physician. 2009;80(8):815-820.
17. Ray S, Halder S, Saha MK, Kyal A, Chowdhury S Evaluation of adnexal masses: correlation of clinical examination, sonographic assessment and histopathological findings. Int J Reprod Contracept Obstet Gynecol 2023;12 :xxx-xx.
18. Rai R, Bhutia PC, Tshomo U. Clinicopathological profile of adnexal masses presenting to a tertiary-care hospital in Bhutan. South Asian J Cancer. 2019;8(3):168-172. doi:10.4103/sajc.sajc_303_18
19. Dotlić J, Terzić M, Likić I, Atanacković J, Ladjević N. Evaluation of adnexal masses: correlation between clinical, ultrasound and histopathological findings. Vojnosanit Pregl. 2011;68(10):861-866.