SONOGRAPHIC ADVANCEMENTS IN CHARACTERIZATION OF BENIGN AND MALIGNANT OVARIAN MASSES: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW

Furozan Baig

SONOGRAPHIC ADVANCEMENTS IN CHARACTERIZATION OF BENIGN AND MALIGNANT OVARIAN MASSES: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW

Furozan Baig

Abstract

Abstract:

Background: Characterization of ovarian masses is essentially required and inevitable for optimization of clinical decision making, patient care and management. The diagnosis of ovarian masses is a frequent dilemma in clinical work. Ultrasonography remains the modality of choice in the early investigation of suspected adnexal masses because of its availability and being a safe modality.

Aim: To review the current literature on different patterns of manifestation of ovarian masses on ultrasound and its various modes, helping in differential diagnosis on the basis of morphologic, vascular and other characteristics as seen on ultrasound.

Methods: Electronic database was searched (PubMed, Google Scholar, Science direct) with data ranging from year 2000 to 2021. Most relevant studies, relating to sonographic appearances of ovarian masses were selected.

Results: 25 most relevant articles were found: 8 articles were regarding gray-scale ultrasound, 3 articles regarding three dimensional ultrasonography, 2 articles regarding contrast enhanced ultrasonography, 2 regarding elastography and rest were regarding combined use of gray-scale and Doppler ultrasound including color and power Doppler ultrasonography for the assessment of ovarian masses. Our results show that conventional 2D sonography, in conjunction with latest advancements helps improving the diagnosis based on typical sonographic appearances of masses. Screening for ovarian cancer also proves to be helpful for early diagnosis and improvement in survival rate.

Conclusion: Ultrasonoraphy and its different modalities such as 3DUS, CEUS, elastography along with conventional 2D and Doppler studies accurately identifies morphologic, structural and vascular features of the adnexal masses and differential diagnosis by escaping unnecessary surgeries and improving the survival rate.

Full Text:

PDF

References

REFERENCES:

Jacques S. Abramowicz DT. Ovarian mass–differentiating benign from malignant: the value of the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis ultrasound rules. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2017; 217(6): Pages 652-660.

-----------------------------------------------------

Bourne ASCELFJKCSSSDTT. The characteristic ultrasound features of specific types of ovarian pathology (review). International Journal of Oncology. 2014; 46(2): 445 - 458.

------------------------------------------------------

Jeong YY. Imaging Evaluation of Ovarian Masses. RadioGraphics. 2000; 20(5): 1445-1470.

------------------------------------------------------

Valentin DTACTTBLADJCVHDPBVCIVSVHL. Simple ultrasound‐based rules for the diagnosis of ovarian cancer. Ultrasound in obstetrics and gynecology. 2008; 31(6): 681-690.

-------------------------------------------------------

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

--------------------------------------------------------

Amor F VHAJLMCJMJ. Gynecologic imaging reporting and data system: a new proposal for classifying adnexal masses on the basis of sonographic findings. J Ultrasound Med. 2009; 28(3): 285-291.

--------------------------------------------------------

Orden MR JJKP. Kinetics of a US contrast agent in benign and malignant adnexal tumors. Radiology. 2003; 22(6): 405-410.

---------------------------------------------------------

Testa AC FGFEea. The use of contrasted transvaginal sonography in the diagnosis of gynecologic diseases: a preliminary study. J. Ultrasound Med. 2005; 24: 1267-1278.

----------------------------------------------------------

Fleischer AC LAJHJ,ea. Contrast-enhanced transvaginal sonography of benign versus malignant ovarian masses: preliminary findings. J. Ultrasound Med. 2008; 27: 1011-1021.

------------------------------------------------------------

Juan Luis Alcázar MD GCM. Comparison of 2-dimensional and 3-dimensional power-Doppler imaging in complex adnexal masses for the prediction of ovarian cancer. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2004; 192(3): 807-812.

-------------------------------------------------------------

Guerriero S AJASea. Transvaginal Color Doppler Imaging in the Detection of Ovarian Cancer in a Large Study Population. International Journal of Gynecologic Cancer. 2010; 20: 781-786.

--------------------------------------------------------------

Schneider VL SARKHK. Comparison of Doppler with two-dimensional sonography and CA 125 for prediction of malignancy of pelvic masses. Obstet Gynecol. 1993; 81: 983-988.

---------------------------------------------------------------

Hata K HTMASKMK. A critical evaluation of transvaginal Doppler studies, transvaginal sonography, magnetic resonance imaging, and CA 125 in detecting ovarian cancer. Obstet Gynecol. 1992; 80: 922-926.

---------------------------------------------------------------

WH. P. Management of adnexal masses by operative laparoscopy. Selection criteria. J Reprod Med. 1992; 37: 603-606.

----------------------------------------------------------------

Sassone AM TTIAA. Transvaginal sonographic characterization of ovarian disease: evaluation of a new scoring system to predict ovarian malignancy. Obstet. Gynecol. 1991; 78: 70-76.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

L. V. Pattern recognition of pelvic masses by gray-scale ultrasound imaging: the contribution of Doppler ultrasound. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 1991; 14(5): 338-347.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Saunders BA PIWR. Risk of malignancy in sonographically confirmed septated cystic ovarian tumors. Gynecol. Oncol. 2010; 118(3): 278-282.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Timmerman D VLBTCWVHVI. Terms, definitions and measurements to describe the sonographic features of adnexal tumors: a consensus opinion from the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis (IOTA) group. Ultrasound Obstet. Gyneco. 2000; 16(5): 500-505.

------------------------------------------------------------------

Timmerman D TABT. Simple ultrasound-based rules for the diagnosis of ovarian cancer. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 2008; 31(6): 681-690.

------------------------------------------------------------------

JL. A. Three-dimensional ultrasound in gynecology: current status and future perspectives. Curr. Womens Health Rev. 2005; 1(1): 1-14.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Bega G LTAOPBEKA. Three-dimensional ultrasonography in gynecology: technical aspects and clinical applications. J. Ultrasound Med. 2003; 22(11): 1249-1269.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Pairleitner H SHHGSA. Three dimensional power Doppler sonography: imaging and quantifying blood flow and vascularization. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 1999; 14(2): 139-143.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Nazan Ciledag KAEABKA. A pilot study on real-time transvaginal ultrasonographic elastography of cystic ovarian lesions. Indian J Med Res. 2013 June; 137(6): 1089-1092.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Kawai M KTKFMOOHTY. Transvaginal Doppler ultrasound with color flow imaging in the diagnosis of ovarian cancer. Obstet Gynecol. 1992; 79: 163-167.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Valentin L SPMK. Limited contribution of Doppler velocimetry to the differential diagnosis of extrauterinepelvic tumors. Obstet Gynecol. 1994 425-433; 83.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Stein SM LNSJMRLMLTJea. Differentiation of benign and malignant adnexal masses: relative value of gray-scale, color Doppler and spectral Doppler sonography. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1995; 164: 381-386.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

SchellingM BKBGGRGJea. Combined transvaginal B-mode and color Doppler sonography for differential diagnosis of ovarian tumors: results of a multivariate logistic regression analysis. Gynecol Oncol. 2000; 79: 78-86.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Alca´zar JL MLLCJMLGG. A new scoring system to differentiate benign from malignant adnexal. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2003; 188: 685-92.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Menon U GMAHR. Sensitivity and specificity of multimodal and ultrasound screening for ovarian cancer, and stage distribution of detected cancers: results of the prevalence screen of the UK Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening (UKCTOCS). Lancet Oncol. 2009; 10(4): 327-340.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Van Nagell JRJr MRDC. Long-term survival of women with epithelial ovarian cancer detected by ultrasonographic screening. Obstet. Gynecol. 2011; 118(6): 1212-1221.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Pavlik EJ UFMR. Frequency and disposition of ovarian abnormalities followed with serial transvaginal ultrasonography. Obstet. Gynecol. 2013; 122: 210-217.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Guerriero S SLAJea. Past, Present and Future Ultrasonographic Techniques for Analyzing Ovarian Masses. Women’s Health. 2015: 369-383.

Refbacks

There are currently no refbacks.