Sonographic Evaluation of Morphology of Pelvic Masses and to Correlate with the Histopathological Diagnosis of the Patients who Underwent Surgical Intervention

(English) Aim: The aim of this study was to evaluate the sonographic morphology of pelvic masses and to correlate with the histopathological diagnosis of the patients who underwent surgical intervention. Material and Methods: A cross-sectional prospective study was conducted in the Department of Radiology, Netaji Subhas Medical College and Hospital, Amhara, Bihta, Patna, Bihar, India for 12 months. Total 100 female patients with gynecological masses using high resolution ultrasonography and findings correlated with histopathology or serial sonographic examination. Results: Majority of the patients were in the age group of 40-50 years with mean age of 36.3 years. The minimum number was in the age group of below 20 years. The most common chief complaint of female patients enrolled in our study was pain in pelvic cavity 36 (36%) followed by pain and palpable mass 16(16%). Menstrual irregularity, menorrhagia, post-menopausal bleeding, infertility, and amenorrhea were the other less common complaints in the female patients of our study. Out of 100 patients evaluated by ultrasonography 25 (25%) were having ovarian pathologies and 45(45%) were having uterine pathologies. 11(11%) patients presented with localized collection in to the fallopian tube pathologies. Few cases there were involvement 8(8%) of vagina. Fibroids were the most common uterine masses. Conclusion: The USG is most commonly preferred imaging tool to evaluate gynecological masses. It’s important to differentiate gynecological and non-gynecological masses on sonography for accurate management of the patient. Files IJPCR,Vol13,Issue4,Article72.pdf Additional details Dates - Accepted - 2021-07-28 Software - Repository URL - https://impactfactor.org/PDF/IJPCR/13/IJPCR,Vol13,Issue4,Article72.pdf - Development Status - Active

- 1. Granberg S, Crona N, Enk L. Ultrasound guided puncture of cystic tumors in the lower pelvis of young women. J Clin Ultrasound. 1989;17(2):107−111. 2. Requard CK, Mettler FA, Wicks JD. Preoperative sonography of malignant ovarian neoplasms. Radiology. 1981;137(1):79−82. 3. Johnson RS. Radiology in the management of the ovarian cancer. Clin Radiol 1993; 48:75-82. 4. Patel MD. Pitfalls in the sonographic evaluation of adnexal masses. Ultrasound Q. 2012; 28:29–40. 5. Smorgick N, Maymon R. Assessment of adnexal masses using ultrasound: a practical review. International Journal of Women's Health. 2014; 6:857-863. 6. Liu J, Xu Y, Wang J. Ultrasonography, computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging for diagnosis of ovarian carcinoma. Eur J Radiol 2007; 62:328-334. 7. Kurman RJ, Shih Ie M. The origin and pathogenesis of epithelial ovarian cancer: a proposed unifying theory. Am J Surg Pathol. 2010; 34(3):433-43. 8. Finkler NJ, Benacerraf B, Lavin PT, Wojciechowski C, Knapp RC. Comparison of serum CA 125, clinical impression, and ultrasound in the preoperative evaluation of ovarian masses. Obstet Gynecol. 1988; 72(4):659-64. 9. Jacobs I, Oram D, Fairbanks J, Turner J, Frost C, Grudzinskas JG. A risk of malignancy index incorporating CA 125, ultrasound and menopausal status for the accurate preoperative diagnosis of ovarian cancer. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1990; 97(10):922-9. 10. Sassone AM, Timor-Tritsch IE, Artner A, Westhoff C, Warren WB. Transvaginal sonographic characterization of ovarian disease: evaluation of a new scoring system to predict ovarian malignancy. Obstet Gynecol. 1991; 78(1):70-6. 11. DePriest PD, Shenson D, Fried A, Hunter JE, Andrews SJ, Gallion HH, Pavlik EJ, Kryscio RJ, Van Nagell JR. A morphology index based on sonographic findings in ovarian cancer. Gynecologic oncology. 1993 Oct 1;51(1):7-11. 12. Lerner JP, Timor-Tritsch IE, Federman A, Abramovich G. Transvaginal ultrasonographic characterization of ovarian masses with an improved, weighted scoring system. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1994; 170(1 Pt 1):81-5 13. Walsh JW, Taylor KJ, Wasson JF, Schwartz PE, Rosenfield AT. Grayscale ultrasound in 204 proved gynecologic masses: accuracy and specific diagnostic criteria. Radiology. 1979 Feb;130(2):391-7. 14. Sakhel K, Abuhamad A. Sonography of adenomyosis. J Ultrasound Med 2012;31:805-8 15. Bergeron C, Amant F, Ferenczy A. Pathology and physiopathology of adenomyosis. Best Pract Res ClinObstet Gynaecol. 2006 Aug;20(4):511- 21. Epub 2006 Mar 24. 16. Bezian A, Carretero M: ultrasonic evaluation pelvic masses in pregnancy. Clin. Obstet. Gynae. 1977; 20; 325-38. 17. Epstein E, Di Legge A, Måsbäck A, Lindqvist PG, Kannisto P, Testa AC. Sonographic characteristics of squamous cell cancer and adenocarcinoma of the uterine cervix. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2010; 36:512-6. 18. Kinkel K, Hricak H, Lu Y. US characterization of ovarian masses: a meta-analysis. Radiol. 2000;217:803. 19. Walsh JW, Taylor KJ, Wasson JF, Schwartz PE, Rosenfield AT. Grayscale ultrasound in 204 proved gynecologic masses: accuracy and specific diagnostic criteria. Radiology. 1979 Feb;130(2):391-7. 20. Outwater EK, Siegelman ES, Hunt JL. Ovarian teratomas: tumor types and imaging characteristics. Radiographics. 2001 Mar;21(2):475-90. 21. Fleischer AC. Differential diagnosis of pelvic masses by gray scale sonography. Am. Jr. of Roentology.1978; 131:469-76. 22. Lawson TL. Ectopic pregnancy: criteria and accuracy of ultrasonic diagnosis. American Journal of Roentgenology. 1978 Jul 1;131(1):153-6. 23. Pillai SS. Clinicopathological spectrum of gynecological pelvic masses: a crosssectional study. Int J Reprod Contracept Obstet Gynecol 2017;6:1915-9. 24. Eze JC, Ugwu AC, Ohagwu CC. The value of ultrasonography in the diagnosis of leiomyomas in Southeast Nigeria. J Asian Scient Res. 2013;3(2):151-6. 25. Dias DS, Bueloni-Dias FN, Delmanto A, Tonon ÂF, Tayfour NM, Traiman P, Dias R. Clinical management of incidental findings on pelvic adnexal masses. Revista da Associação Médica Brasileira. 2015 Oct;61(5):469-73. 26. Tripathi P, Singh D, Bagul M. Ultrasonography Study of Gynecological Pelvic Masses. Int Res J Cli Med 2016;1(4):1-6.