Title: Comparative Study of USG and CT in the Evaluation of Suspicious Ovarian Masses
Author: Dr Sanjay Kumar Chowdhury
DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.18535/jmscr/v5i2.165
Abstract
Ovarian tumors continue to pose a major challenge to clinicians and radiologists. Ovarian Carcinoma is the second most common gynecological malignancy. The present study is undertaken to determine the role of US and CT in the evaluation of suspicious ovarian masses. This will help the treating clinician to plan the management with regard to type and extent of surgery.
Methods and Materials: All patients underwent Ultrasonography and CT scan. Site and size of the mass, papillary projections, characteristics of cyst walls, capsular infiltrations, necrosis, lymphadenopathy and presence of as cites were recorded Specimens were sent for histopathological diagnosis.
Results: US had sensitivity of 88.2%, specificity 63.2%, positive predictive value (PPV) of 88.5% and negative predictive value (NPV) of 66.7% for benign tumors whereas for malignant tumors the sensitivity was 63.2, specificity 88.2, PPV 66.7% and NPV 86.5%. CT scan showed sensitivity of 98%, specificity of 95%, and PPV of 98% and NPV of 95% for benign tumours whereas for malignant tumors the sensitivity was 87.5, specificity 92.6%, PPV 77.8% and NPV 96.1%.
Conclusion: The evaluation of ovarian masses by CT scan was superior to the evaluation by US.
Keywords: Ultrasound, CT Scan, Ovarian Tumors, Sensitivity, Specificity.
References
1. Siegel R, Naishadham D, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2012. CA Cancer J Clin 2012; 62:10.
2. Averette H.E. and Nguyen H.N.: The role of pro-phylactic oophrectomy in cancer prevention. Gynecologic Oncology, 55 (3): 38-41, 2001.
3. Ponder B.A.Y., Barlow and Lela S.B.: Preop-erative and intraoperative evaluation in ovarian malignan-cy. Obstet. Gynecol., 48: 321-5, 2002.
4. Liu J., Xu Y. and Wang J.: Ultrasonography, computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging for diagnosis of ovarian carcinoma. Eur. J. Radiol., 2007, 62 : 328-334.
5. Funt S.A. and Hann L.E.: Detection and characteriza-tion of adnexal masses. Radiologic Clin. North Am., 2002, 40: 591-608.
6. Loyer M., Whitman J. and Fenstermacher J.M.: Imaging of ovarian carcinoma. Int. J. Gynecol. Cancer, 1999, 9: 351-61.
7. Jeong Y.Y., Eric K. and Outwater M.D.: Imaging evaluation of ovarian masses. Radiographics, 2000, 20: 1445- 70.
8. Onyeka B.A., Attalla A. and Deemer H.: Comparative diagnostic values of greyn-scale USS versus CT scan in primary management of gynaecological pelvic mass with emphasis on ovarian detection and staging. J. Obstet. Gynaecol., 2001, 21: 516-9.