Title: Radiopathological Correlation of Adnexal Lesions: Our experience
Authors: Dr Om Prakash Rathore, Dr Kirti Rana, Dr R. N. Gehlot
DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.18535/jmscr/v5i7.95
Abstract
Background: Adnexal masses are considered one of the most common disorders in gynecology practice. Primary goal of imaging in the evaluation of an adnexal mass is to differentiate malignant and benign lesions in order to direct patients to the appropriate treatment algorithm.
Aim: To study the spectrum of diverse nature of adnexal mass lesions. To assess the relative role of USG and MRI in the evaluation of adnexal mass lesions, and compare them with clinical outcome or operative findings wherever possible.
Materials and Methods: This prospective study was conducted on 50 patients who are clinically suspected to have adnexal lesions. USG and MRI using standard protocol are performed in all patients with adnexal lesions and various features of adnexal lesions were noted.
Results: Most commonly affected age group was 21-40 yrs. The major presenting complaints were lower abdominal pain and lump in the lower abdomen. In our study, most common origin of adnexal lesions was from ovaries. On USG, 50 % were cystic in consistency, 86 % and 14 % were reported as benign and malignant respectively. On MRI, 56 % were cystic, 88% and 12 % were reported as benign and malignant respectively.
Conclusion: The sensitivity of MRI and USG for diagnosing malignancy of adnexal lesions is similar. However, due to better specificity and lower false positivity rate, higher sensitivity in detecting invasion of adjacent organs and organs of origin of lesions, MRI may be considered complimentary for optimal patient management and can be used in the assessment of problematic cases.
Keywords: Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Ultrasound, Cystadenoma, Krukenberg Tumour, Endometrioma,
References
1. Bhagde AD, Jani SK, Patel MS et al: An analytical study of 50 women presenting with an adnexal mass. Int J Reprod Contracept Obstet Gynecol. 2017 Jan; 6(1):262- 265 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/ 10.18203/2320-1770. ijrcog 20164671
2. Thawait SK, Batra K, Johnson SI et al: Magnetic resonance imaging evaluation of non ovarian adnexal lesions, ClinImaging. 2016JanFeb;40 (1):3345, doi:10.1016/j.clinimag.2015.07.031.
3. Karnik A, Tembey RA, Mani S: Value of MRI in Characterizing Adnexal Masses, J Obstet Gynaecol India. 2015 Jul;65 (4):25966, doi: 10.1007/s1322401507309, Epub 2015 Jul 9.
4. Gibert BS, Sakly H, Ballester M et al: Diagnostic Value of MR Imaging in the Diagnosis of Adnexal Torsion, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1148/radiol. 2015150261
5. Anthoulakis C, Nikoloudis N: Pelvic MRI as the "gold standard" in the subsequent evaluation of ultrasound in determinate adnexal lesions: a systematic review, Gynecol Oncol. 2014 Mar;132 (3):6618, doi: 10.1016 /j.ygyno.2013.10.022, Epub 2013 Oct 29.
6. Haggerty AF , Hagemann AR, Chu C et al: Correlation of pelvic magnetic resonance imaging diagnosis with pathology for indeterminate adnexal masses, Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2014 Sep;24 (7):121521, doi: 10.1097/ IGC.0000000000000203.
7. Linda Y. Kao1, Meir H et al: Beyond Ultrasound: CT and MRI of Ectopic Pregnancy. American Journal of Roentgenology. 2014;202:904-911.10.2214/ AJR.13.10644 http://www.ajronline.org/doi/10.2214/AJR.13.10644
8. Wasnik AP, Menias C, Platt JF et al: Multimodality imaging of ovarian cystic lesions: Review with an imaging based algorithmic approach. World J Radiol. 2013 Mar 28; 5(3): 113–125. doi: 10.4329/wjr.v5.i3.113
9. Dwivedi AND, Jain S, Shukla RC et al: MRI is a state of art imaging modality in characterization of indeterminate adnexal masses, J. Biomedical Science and Engineering, 2013, 6, 309-313 http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/jbise.2013.63A039
10. Mahajan M, Kuber R, Chaudhari KR et al: MR imaging of carcinoma cervix. Indian J Radiol Imaging. 2013 Jul-Sep; 23(3): 247–252.doi: 10.4103/0971-3026.120257
11. Valentini L, Gui B, Micco M et al : Benign and Suspicious Ovarian Masses—MR Imaging Criteria for Characterization: Pictorial Review, Hindawi Publishing Corporation, Journal of Oncology, Volume 2012, Article ID 481806, 9 pages, doi:10.1155/2012/481806
12. Haldorsen LS, Salvesen HB. Staging of endometrial carcinomas with MRI using traditional and novel techniques. Clin Radiol. 2012 Jan; 67(1):2-12. Doi: 10.1016/j.crad.2011.02.018.
13. Chilla B, Hauser N, Singer G et al: Indeterminate adnexal masses at ultrasound: effect of MRI imaging findings on diag-nostic thinking and therapeutic decisi-ons. European Radiology. 2011; 21:1301–1310. Doi: 10.1007/s00330-010-2018-x.
14. Douglas L. Brown, Kika M.et al: Adnexal Masses: US Characterization and Reporting. Radiology: Volume 254: Number 2-February2010. 342-354. (radiology.rsna.org).
15. Lalwani N, Shanbhogue AK et al: Current update on borderline ovarian neoplasms. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2010; 194:330–336. doi: 10.2214/ AJR.09.3936
16. Ljubic A, Bozanovic T, Vilendecic.Z: Sonographic Evaluation of Benign Pelvic Masses. Donald School Journal of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology, April-June 2009; 3(2):58-68.
17. Young M Kim, Eun Rha SE et al: MR Imaging Findings of Hydrosalpinx: A Comprehensive Review. March-April 2009 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1148/rg. 292085070
18. Joshi M, Ganesan K, Munshi HH et al: Ultrasound of adnexal masses. April 2008 29, Issue 2, Pages 72–97 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1053/j.sult. 2008.01.004
19. Guerra A, Cunha TM, Félix A: Magnetic resonance evaluation of adnexal masses. Acta Radiol. 2008 Jul;49 (6):7009. Doi: 10.1080/02841850802064995.
20. Van Holsbeke C, Domali E, Holland TK et al: Imaging of gynecological disease (3): clinical and ultrasound characteristics of granulosa cell tumors of the ovary. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2008 Apr; 31(4):450-6. Doi: 10.1002/uog.5279.
21. Sala E, Wakely S, Senior E et al: MRI of malignant neoplasm of the uterine corpus and cervix. American Journal of Roentgenology. 2007; 188:15771587. 10.2214/AJR.06.1196. http://www.ajronline.org/doi/10.2214/AJR.06.1196.
22. Sherer DM1, Gorelick C, Gabbur N et al: Transvaginal sonographic findings of a large intramural uterine hematoma associated with iatrogenic injury sustained at termination of pregnancy. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2007 Jul; 30(1):110-3. DOI:10.1002/uog.4059
23. Van Calster B, Timmerman D, Bourne T et al. Discrimination between benign and malignant adnexal masses by specialist ultrasound examination vs serum CA-125. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2007 Nov 21; 99(22):1706-14. Epub 2007 Nov 13. DOI:10.1093/jnci/djm199
24. Rajkotia K, Veeramani M, Macura KJ. Magnetic Resonance Imaging of Adnexal Masses. Topics in Magnetic Resonance Imaging. 2006; 17:379–397. Doi: 10.1097/RMR.0b013e3180417d8e.
25. Kinkel K, Frei K, Balleyguier C et al: Diagnosis of endometriosis with imaging: a review. European Radiology. 2006; 16:285–298. Doi: 10.1007/s00330-005-2882-y.
26. Tamai, K., Koyama, T., Saga, T. et al. MR features of physiologic and benign conditions of the ovary. Eur Radiol (2006) 16: 2700. doi:10.1007/s00330-006-0302-6
27. Byun JY: MR Imaging Findings of Ovarian Cystadenofibroma: Clues for Making the Differential Diagnosis from Ovarian Malignancy. Korean J Radiol. 2006 Jul-Sep; 7(3): 153–155. Doi: 10.3348/kjr.2006.7.3.153.
28. Adusumilli S, Hussain HK, Caoili EM et al: MRI of sonographically indeterminate adnexal masses. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2006; 187:732–740. Doi: 10.2214/AJR.05.0905.
29. Jung SE, Rha SE, Lee JM et al: CT and MRI Findings of Sex Cord–Stromal Tumor of the Ovary. American Journal of Roentgenology. 2005;185:207-215.10.2214/ajr.185.1.01850207;http://www.ajronline.org/doi/abs/10.2214/ajr.185.1.01850207.
30. Catharina SP, Rijswijk V, Maarje J A et al : Soft-Tissue Tumors: Value of Static and Dynamic Gadopentetate Dimeglumine–enhanced MR Imaging in Prediction of Malignancy1 Published online before print 10.1148/radiol.2332031110, Radiology 2004; 233:493–502. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2332031110.
31. Sohaib AA, Sahdev, Trappen PV et al: Characterization of Adnexal MassLesions on MR Imaging. American Journal of Roentgenology. 2003; 180: 1297-1304. 10.2214/ajr.180.5.1801297. http://www.ajronline.org/doi/abs/ 10.2214/ajr.180.5.1801297
32. Takeuchi M, Matsuzaki K, Kusaka M et al: Ovarian cystadenofibromas: characteristic magnetic resonance findings with pathologic correlation. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2003; 27:871–873.
33. Togashi K: Ovarian cancer: the clinical role of US, CT, and MRI. Eur Radiol. 2003; 13 Suppl 4:L87–104. Doi: 10.1007/s00330-003-1964-y.
34. Funt SA, Hann LF: Detection and characterization of adnexal masses. Radiol Clin North Am. 2002 May;40(3):591-608
35. Outwater EK, Siegelman ES, and Hunt JL: Ovarian teratomas: tumor types and imaging characteristics. Radiographics. 2001; 21:475–490. Doi:10.1148/radio-graphics.21.2.g01mr09475
36. Jeong YY, Outwater EK, Kang HK: .Imaging evaluation of ovarian masses.Radiographics. 2000; 20:1445-1470. DOI: 10.1148/ radiographics. 20.5.g00se101445
37. Leung WT, Hricak H: MRI in evaluation of gynaecological diseases, in Callen PW Ed Ultrasonography in obstetrics and gynaecology .4th edition. Philadelphia, WB Saunders, 2000, pg 935.
38. Murase E, Siegelman ES, and Outwater EK et al: Uterine Leiomyomas: Histopathologic Features, MR Imaging Findings, Differential Diagnosis and Treatment. Radiographics. 1999; 19:1179–97. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1148/radiographics.19.5.g99se131179
39. Iizuka M, Igarashi M, Abe Y et al: Chemical assay of iron in ovarian cysts: a new diagnostic method to evaluate endometriotic cysts. Gynecol Obstet Invest. 1998; 46:58–60. Doi: 10.1159/000009999.
40. Kim SH, Kim WH, Park KJ et al: CT and MR findings of Krukenberg tumors: comparison with primary ovarian tumors. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 1996 May-Jun; 20(3):393-8.
41. Hricak H, Finck S, and Honda G et al: MR imaging in the evaluation of benign uterine masses: value of gadopentate dimeglumine-enhanced T1-weighted images. AJR. 1992; 158:1043–50. DOI:10.2214/ajr.158.5.1566664
42. Nishi M, Akamatsu N, Sekiba K: Magnetic resonance imaging of the ovarian cyst: its diagnostic value of endometrial cyst. Med Prog Technol. 1990; 16:201–212.