TRANSVAGINAL ULTRASOUND EXAMINATION OF OVARIAN MASSES IN PREMENOPAUSAL WOMEN

Authors
Citation
G. Botta et R. Zarcone, TRANSVAGINAL ULTRASOUND EXAMINATION OF OVARIAN MASSES IN PREMENOPAUSAL WOMEN, European journal of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive biology, 62(1), 1995, pp. 37-41
Citations number
25
Categorie Soggetti
Reproductive Biology","Obsetric & Gynecology
ISSN journal
03012115
Volume
62
Issue
1
Year of publication
1995
Pages
37 - 41
Database
ISI
SICI code
0301-2115(1995)62:1<37:TUEOOM>2.0.ZU;2-1
Abstract
Objective: Two scoring systems based on trans-vaginal sonographic find ings of ovarian tumors were evaluated with respect to the prediction o f ovarian malignancy. Study design: In this retrospective study, 64 pr emenopausal non-pregnant patients with an ovarian tumor underwent tran s-vaginal sonography from 1991 to 1993. In each women a numerical scor e was calculated using two methods. Method A included four variables: inner wall structure, wall thickness, presence of septa and echogenici ty. The point scale ranged from 4 to 15 points. Method B included thre e morphological characteristics: volume, wall structure and septal str ucture, the point scale ranging from 0 to 12 points. The threshold val ues for predictability of malignancy were 9 and 5 points for methods A and B, respectively. Results: The mean age of the patients was 32.2 y ears (range 22-44). The mean gravidity was 2.6 (range 0-5) in 45 women , 19 women being nulliparous. Fifty-five masses were surgically proven to be benign and 9 women had primary malignant tumors. Sensitivity an d specificity for prediction of malignancy were 89% and 73%, respectiv ely, for method A, and 89% and 70%, respectively, for method B. Positi ve predictive value and negative predictive value for malignancy were 35% and 97% for method A and 29% and 64% for method B. The mean morpho logy scores on benign and malignant masses, calculated by method A, we re 6.94 +/- 2.36 S.D. and 12.0 +/- 2.4 S.D. (P < 0.01). The same score s, calculated by method B, were 4.16 +/- 1.16 S.D. and 9.44 +/- 2.96 S .D. (P < 0.01). We found a considerable overlap in the scores of diffe rent types of ovarian tumors. Conclusions: Both methods are easy to ap ply and provided explicit data. Method A was shown to be more effectiv e. The number of false positive results was relatively high. The most important single sonographic characteristic of the malignant masses ar e the wall structure abnormalities.