THE ROLE OF ULTRASOUND AND MRI IN THE DIAGNOSIS OF OVARIAN TUMOURS
Author:
Nair Nidhi1, Muthumanickam Aruna2, K Soorya3
Affiliation:
1. Department of Medical Oncology, Tata Memorial Hospital, Parel, Mumbai 2. Department of Internal Medicine, Bronxcare Health System, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York. 3. Department of Radiodiagnosis, MGM Medical College, Indore.
Abstract
Background: Ovarian cancer is the fth leading cause of cancer related death in the USA, and has the
highest mortality rate due to late diagnosis. The most common modalities used in diagnoses are B-Mode
USG, Conventional MRI and DW-MRI. This study aims to statistically analyze and compare the sensitivity, specicity and
measurement of agreement for these modalities. From March 2019 to September 2020, 103 pat Method: ients with ovarian
masses underwent radiodiagnostic testing with USG and MRI, and subsequently 85 patients underwent surgery and the gold
standard histopathological examination. The radiologic diagnosis was correlated with the histopathologic diagnosis for these
patients and the sensitivities, specicities and area under the ROC curve were calculated. The Results: area under ROC curve
increased in the following order: B- Mode USG < B-Mode USG & Doppler combined < conventional MRI < DW-MRI. The
measurement of agreement Kappa increased in the following order: B- Mode USG < B-Mode USG & Doppler combined <
conventional MRI < DW-MRI. The study showed that addition of Doppler to B-Mode USG reduced its sensitivity and NPV. Both
USG and conventional MRI were found to have comparable sensitivities. While DW-MRI is superior t Conclusion: o other
modalities in its high specicity in diagnosing ovarian tumors, USG has equal sensitivity and can be used for initial
presumptive diagnosis in patients with suspected ovarian malignancies.
Publisher
World Wide Journals
Reference8 articles.
1. Murthy, N. S., Chaudhry, K., Nadayil, D., Agarwal, U. K., & Saxena, S. (2009). Changing trends in incidence of breast cancer: Indian scenario. Indian Journal of Cancer, 46(1), 73. https://doi.org/10.4103/0019-509x.48603 2. Ries, L. A. G., Young, J. L., Keel, G. E., Eisner, M. P., Lin, Y. D., & Horner, M.-J. (Eds.). (2007). SEER Survival Monograph: Cancer Survival Among Adults: US SEER Program, 1988-2001, Patient and Tumor Characteristics. SEER Program, NIH Pub. No. 07-6215, Bethesda, MD, 2007.,07(6215), 133. https://seer.cancer.gov/archive/publications/survival/index.html 3. Guerra, A., Cunha, T. M., & Félix, A. (2008). Magnetic resonance evaluation of adnexal masses. Acta Radiologica, 49(6), 700–709. https://doi.org/10.1080/02841850802064995 4. Khalaf, L. M. R., Desoky, H. H. M., Seifeldein, G. S., El-Sharkawy, M., Sayed, M. M., Ahmed, S. & Hussien, M. T. (2019). The diagnostic efficacy of Gynaecology Imaging Reporting and Data System (GI-RADS): single-center prospective cross-sectional study. Egyptian Journal of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, 50(1), 61. https://doi.org/10.1186/s43055-019 0071-2 5. Shen-Gunther, J., & Mannel, R. S. (2002). Ascites as a Predictor of Ovarian Malignancy. Gynecologic Oncology, 87(1),77–83. https://doi.org/10.1006/gyno.2002.6800
|
|