DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY OF ULTRASOUND IN DIFFERENTIATING OVARIAN NEOPLASM, BY TAKING HISTOPATHOLOGY AS GOLD STANDARD

Main Article Content

Rabail Hameer
Shafaq Aijaz
Abid Hussain
Sualeha Usman
Radha
Ekta Raj
Iqra Mustafa

Keywords

Ovarian masses, ultrasound, ovarian cancer, sensitivity, specificity

Abstract

Introduction: Ovarian neoplasms are common gynecological problems. Ultrasound is the primary imaging of choice for evaluation of ovarian lesions. Moreover, it is a cost-effective modality and used to characterize mass on the basis of features initially.


Objective: “To determine the diagnostic accuracy of ultrasound in differentiating ovarian neoplasm, by taking histopathology as gold standard


Study design: Cross-sectional study


Setting: Department of radiology, Liaquat University of Medical and Health Sciences, Jamshoro - Pakistan


Study duration: 10th November 2021 till 10th may 2022


Methods: Women aged 20-45 years presenting with ovarian lesions >8 cm on ultrasound were included. Patients underwent laparotomy after ultrasound. Diagnostic accuracy including sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) of ultrasound was calculated using 2 x 2 tables keeping histopathological findings as gold standard.


Results:  Mean age of the patients was 36.01 ± 6.44 years. Mean duration of symptoms was 27.75 ± 17.2 months. Total 25 (11.50%) had 1 parity and 192 (88.50%) had >1 parity. Diagnostic accuracy of ultrasound in cases of malignancy showed sensitivity, specificity, positive predicted value (PPV), negative predicted value (NPV) and overall diagnostic accuracy as 82.68%, 73.68%, 93.67%, 47.46% and 81.11% taking histopathology as gold standard.


Conclusion: Ultrasound has high sensitivity, moderate specificity, and high diagnostic accuracy in diagnosing malignant ovarian masses taking histopathology as gold standard.

Abstract 246 | pdf Downloads 98

References

1. M. Pourissa, S. Refahi, Moghangard MD. The diagnostic accuracy of abdominal ultrasound imaging for detection of ovarian masses. Iranian Journal of Radiology. 2007 Jan 1; 4(2):103-7.
2. Goyal M, Agarwal VK. Diagnostic accuracy of B-mode USG and Doppler scan for ovarian lesions. Journal of clinical and diagnostic research: JCDR. 2016 Sep; 10(9):TC01.
3. Salwar CM, Siddiqui N, Khichari RA, Bandar F. Epithelial ovarian cancer at a cancer hospital in a developing country. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2006 Oct 1; 7(4):595-8.
4. Salem S, Wilson SR. Gynaecological ultrasound In Rumack Carol M. Diagnostic Ultrasound. 3rd edition. volume 1. Missouri: Elsevier Inc; 2005. p. 563
5. Radhamani S, Akhila MV. Evaluation of Adnexal Masses-Correlation of clinical, sonological and histopathological findings in adnexal masses. Int J Sci Stud. 2017 Feb 1;4(11):88-92.
6. Brown DL. A practical approach to the ultrasound characterization of adnexal masses. Ultrasound Q. 2007; 23:87–105
7. Javadi S, Ganeshan DM, Qayyum A, Iyer RB, Bhosale P. Ovarian cancer, the revised FIGO staging system, and the role of imaging. Am J Roentgenol.2016Jun;206(6):1351-60.
8. Funt SA, Hricak H. Ovarian malignancie. Top MagnReson Imaging. 2003;14(4):329–37.
9. Zaka-ur-Rab Z. Evaluation of laboratory markers of sepsis screen in the diagnosis of early onset neonatal septicemia. Int J ContempPediatr. 2016 Nov;3(4):1144-1149
10. Gentry-Maharaj A, Burnell M, Dilley J, Ryan A, Karpinskyj C, Gunu R, et al. Serum HE4
11. Kalsoom U, Arooj S, Raja R, Mushtaq R, Masood M. Diagnostic accuracy of transvaginal doppler ultrasound in differentiating malignant and benign ovarian masses. Ann King Edward Med Uni. 2020 Sep 30;26(2):359-63.
12. He P, Wang JJ, Duan W, Song C, Yang Y, Wu QQ. Estimating the risk of malignancy of adnexal masses: validation of the ADNEX model in the hands of nonexpert ultrasonographers in a gynaecological oncology centre in China. J Ovarian Res. 2021 Dec 2;14(1):169.
13. Qi L, Chen D, Li C, Li J, Wang J, Zhang C, et al. Diagnosis of Ovarian Neoplasms Using Nomogram in Combination With Ultrasound Image-Based Radiomics Signature and Clinical Factors. Front Genet. 2021 Sep 28;12:753948.
14. Peng XS, Ma Y, Wang LL, Li HX, Zheng XL, Liu Y. Evaluation of the Diagnostic Value of the Ultrasound ADNEX Model for Benign and Malignant Ovarian Tumors. Int J Gen Med. 2021 Sep 16;14:5665-5673.
15. Gupta P, Velamala P, Gupta N, Suri V, Lal A, Rohilla M, et al. Ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration of ovarian masses: Assessment of diagnostic accuracy and risk stratification using a categorical reporting system. Cytopathology. 2021 Jul;32(4):441-458.
16. Yang L, Lv G, Chen H, Yang S, Liao J, Zhang W, et al. Diagnostic Efficiency of Gynecologic Imaging Reporting and Data System Combined With 3-dimensional Contrast-enhanced Ultrasound Scoring System in Evaluating Ovarian Tumor. Ultrasound Q. 2020 Dec;36(4):375-381.
17. Yu C, Dou T, Liu Y, Liu R. Clinical value of TV-CDS combined with serum tumor markers in diagnosis of ovarian cancer. Oncol Lett. 2020 Aug;20(2):2028-2034.