Advanced search
Publication Cover
Expert Review of Obstetrics & Gynecology Volume 7, 2012 - Issue 5
Journal homepage
17
Views
7
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Review

Ultrasound assessment in adnexal masses: an update

Juan Luis Alcázar Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Clínica Universidad de Navarra, University of Navarra, Pamplona, Spain; Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Clínica Universidad de Navarra, University of Navarra, Pamplona, Spain. [email protected]
,
María Aubá Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Clínica Universidad de Navarra, University of Navarra, Pamplona, Spain; Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Clínica Universidad de Navarra, University of Navarra, Pamplona, Spain
,
Álvaro Ruiz-Zambrana Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Clínica Universidad de Navarra, University of Navarra, Pamplona, Spain; Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Clínica Universidad de Navarra, University of Navarra, Pamplona, Spain
,
Begoña Olartecoechea Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Clínica Universidad de Navarra, University of Navarra, Pamplona, Spain; Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Clínica Universidad de Navarra, University of Navarra, Pamplona, Spain
,
Daysi Diaz Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Clínica Universidad de Navarra, University of Navarra, Pamplona, Spain; Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Clínica Universidad de Navarra, University of Navarra, Pamplona, Spain
,
Juan José Hidalgo Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Hospital Universitario ‘La Fe’, Valencia, Spain; Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Hospital Universitario ‘La Fe’, Valencia, Spain
,
Laura Pineda Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Clínica Universidad de Navarra, University of Navarra, Pamplona, Spain; Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Clínica Universidad de Navarra, University of Navarra, Pamplona, Spain
&
Jesús Utrilla-Layna Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Clínica Universidad de Navarra, University of Navarra, Pamplona, Spain; Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Clínica Universidad de Navarra, University of Navarra, Pamplona, Spain
 show all
Pages 441-449 | Published online: 10 Jan 2014

References

  • Engelen MJ, Kos HE, Willemse PH et al. Surgery by consultant gynecologic oncologists improves survival in patients with ovarian carcinoma. Cancer 106(3), 589–598 (2006).
  • Medeiros LR, Rosa DD, da Rosa MI, Bozzetti MC. Accuracy of ultrasonography with color Doppler in ovarian tumor: a systematic quantitative review. Int. J. Gynecol. Cancer. 19(2), 230–236 (2009).
  • Sokalska A, Timmerman D, Testa AC et al. Diagnostic accuracy of transvaginal ultrasound examination for assigning a specific diagnosis to adnexal masses. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 34(4), 462–470 (2009).
  • Timmerman D, Valentin L, Bourne TH, Collins WP, Verrelst H, Vergote I; International Ovarian Tumor Analysis (IOTA) Group. 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. Gynecol. 16(5), 500–505 (2000).
  • Alcázar JL, Guerriero S, Laparte C, Ajossa S, Ruiz-Zambrana A, Melis GB. Diagnostic performance of transvaginal grayscale ultrasound for specific diagnosis of benign ovarian cysts in relation to menopausal status. Maturitas. 68(2), 182–188 (2011).
  • Guerriero S, Alcázar JL, Coccia ME et al. Complex pelvic mass as a target of evaluation of vessel distribution by color Doppler sonography for the diagnosis of adnexal malignancies: results of a multicenter European study. J. Ultrasound Med. 21(10), 1105–1111 (2002).
  • Guerriero S, Alcázar JL, Ajossa S et al. Transvaginal color Doppler imaging in the detection of ovarian cancer in a large study population. Int. J. Gynecol. Cancer. 20(5), 781–786 (2010).
  • Alcázar JL, Guerriero S, Laparte C, Ajossa S, Jurado M. Contribution of power Doppler blood flow mapping to grayscale ultrasound for predicting malignancy of adnexal masses in symptomatic and asymptomatic women. Eur. J. Obstet. Gynecol. Reprod. Biol. 155(1), 99–105 (2011).
  • Alcázar JL, Guerriero S, Pascual MÁ, Ajossa S, Olartecoechea B, Hereter L. Clinical and sonographic features of uncommon primary ovarian malignancies. J. Clin. Ultrasound. 40(6), 323–329 (2012).
  • Testa AC, Ferrandina G, Timmerman D et al. Imaging in gynecological disease (1): ultrasound features of metastases in the ovaries differ depending on the origin of the primary tumor. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 29(5), 505–511 (2007).
  • Guerriero S, Alcázar JL, Pascual MA, Ajossa S, Olartecoechea B, Hereter L. Preoperative diagnosis of metastatic ovarian cancer is related to origin of primary tumor. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 39(5), 581–586 (2012).
  • Guerriero S, Alcázar JL, Pascual MA et al. Diagnosis of the most frequent benign ovarian cysts: is ultrasonography accurate and reproducible? J. Womens Health (Larchmt) 18(4), 519–527 (2009).
  • Van Holsbeke C, Daemen A, Yazbek J et al. Ultrasound methods to distinguish between malignant and benign adnexal masses in the hands of examiners with different levels of experience. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 34(4), 454–461 (2009).
  • Guerriero S, Alcázar JL, Pascual MA et al. The diagnosis of ovarian cancer: is color Doppler imaging reproducible and accurate in examiners with different degrees of experience? J. Womens Health (Larchmt) 20(2), 273–277 (2011).
  • Yazbek J, Ameye L, Timmerman D et al. Use of ultrasound pattern recognition by expert operators to identify borderline ovarian tumors: a study of diagnostic performance and interobserver agreement. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 35(1), 84–88 (2010).
  • Van Holsbeke C, Daemen A, Yazbek J et al. Ultrasound experience substantially impacts on diagnostic performance and confidence when adnexal masses are classified using pattern recognition. Gynecol. Obstet. Invest. 69(3), 160–168 (2010).
  • Faschingbauer F, Benz M, Häberle L et al. Subjective assessment of ovarian masses using pattern recognition: the impact of experience on diagnostic performance and interobserver variability. Arch. Gynecol. Obstet. 285(6), 1663–1669 (2012).
  • Yazbek J, Raju SK, Ben-Nagi J, Holland TK, Hillaby K, Jurkovic D. Effect of quality of gynaecological ultrasonography on management of patients with suspected ovarian cancer: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol. 9(2), 124–131 (2008).
  • 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. 97(10), 922–929 (1990).
  • Tingulstad S, Hagen B, Skjeldestad FE et al. Evaluation of a risk of malignancy index based on serum CA125, ultrasound findings and menopausal status in the pre-operative diagnosis of pelvic masses. Br. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. 103(8), 826–831 (1996).
  • Tingulstad S, Hagen B, Skjeldestad FE, Halvorsen T, Nustad K, Onsrud M. The risk-of-malignancy index to evaluate potential ovarian cancers in local hospitals. Obstet. Gynecol. 93(3), 448–452 (1999).
  • Enakpene CA, Omigbodun AO, Goecke TW, Odukogbe AT, Beckmann MW. Preoperative evaluation and triage of women with suspicious adnexal masses using risk of malignancy index. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. Res. 35(1), 131–138 (2009).
  • Clarke SE, Grimshaw R, Rittenberg P, Kieser K, Bentley J. Risk of malignancy index in the evaluation of patients with adnexal masses. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. Can. 31(5), 440–445 (2009).
  • van den Akker PA, Aalders AL, Snijders MP et al. Evaluation of the risk of malignancy index in daily clinical management of adnexal masses. Gynecol. Oncol. 116(3), 384–388 (2010).
  • van den Akker PA, Zusterzeel PL, Aalders AL et al. External validation of the adapted risk of malignancy index incorporating tumor size in the preoperative evaluation of adnexal masses. Eur. J. Obstet. Gynecol. Reprod. Biol. 159(2), 422–425 (2011).
  • Geomini P, Kruitwagen R, Bremer GL, Cnossen J, Mol BW. The accuracy of risk scores in predicting ovarian malignancy: a systematic review. Obstet. Gynecol. 113(2 Pt 1), 384–394 (2009).
  • Van Gorp T, Veldman J, Van Calster B et al. Subjective assessment by ultrasound is superior to the risk of malignancy index (RMI) or the risk of ovarian malignancy algorithm (ROMA) in discriminating benign from malignant adnexal masses. Eur. J. Cancer. 48(11), 1649–1656 (2012).
  • Radosa MP, Camara O, Vorwergk J et al. Preoperative multimodal strategies for risk assessment of adnexal masses: analysis of 1362 cases in a gynecologic cancer center. Int. J. Gynecol. Cancer. 21(6), 1056–1062 (2011).
  • Minaretzis D, Tsionou C, Tziortziotis D, Michalas S, Aravantinos D. Ovarian tumors: prediction of the probability of malignancy by using patient’s age and tumor morphologic features with a logistic model. Gynecol. Obstet. Invest. 38(2), 140–144 (1994).
  • Tailor A, Jurkovic D, Bourne TH, Collins WP, Campbell S. Sonographic prediction of malignancy in adnexal masses using multivariate logistic regression analysis. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 10(1), 41–47 (1997).
  • Alcázar JL, Jurado M. Using a logistic model to predict malignancy of adnexal masses based on menopausal status, ultrasound morphology, and color Doppler findings. Gynecol. Oncol. 69(2), 146–150 (1998).
  • Timmerman D, Bourne TH, Tailor A et al. A comparison of methods for preoperative discrimination between malignant and benign adnexal masses: the development of a new logistic regression model. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 181(1), 57–65 (1999).
  • Aslam N, Banerjee S, Carr JV, Savvas M, Hooper R, Jurkovic D. Prospective evaluation of logistic regression models for the diagnosis of ovarian cancer. Obstet. Gynecol. 96(1), 75–80 (2000).
  • Mol BW, Boll D, De Kanter M et al. Distinguishing the benign and malignant adnexal mass: an external validation of prognostic models. Gynecol. Oncol. 80(2), 162–167 (2001).
  • Timmerman D, Testa AC, Bourne T et al.; International Ovarian Tumor Analysis Group. Logistic regression model to distinguish between the benign and malignant adnexal mass before surgery: a multicenter study by the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis Group. J. Clin. Oncol. 23(34), 8794–8801 (2005).
  • Van Holsbeke C, Van Calster B, Testa AC et al. Prospective internal validation of mathematical models to predict malignancy in adnexal masses: results from the international ovarian tumor analysis study. Clin. Cancer Res. 15(2), 684–691 (2009).
  • Van Holsbeke C, Van Calster B, Bourne T et al. External validation of diagnostic models to estimate the risk of malignancy in adnexal masses. Clin. Cancer Res. 18(3), 815–825 (2012).
  • Valentin L, Hagen B, Tingulstad S, Eik-Nes S. Comparison of ‘pattern recognition’ and logistic regression models for discrimination between benign and malignant pelvic masses: a prospective cross validation. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 18(4), 357–365 (2001).
  • Ameye L, Valentin L, Testa AC et al. A scoring system to differentiate malignant from benign masses in specific ultrasound-based subgroups of adnexal tumors. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 33(1), 92–101 (2009).
  • Timmerman D, Van Calster B, Testa AC et al. Ovarian cancer prediction in adnexal masses using ultrasound-based logistic regression models: a temporal and external validation study by the IOTA group. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 36(2), 226–234 (2010).
  • Daemen A, Valentin L, Fruscio R et al. Improving the preoperative classification of adnexal masses as benign or malignant by second-stage tests. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 37(1), 100–106 (2011).
  • Valentin L, Ameye L, Savelli L et al. Adnexal masses difficult to classify as benign or malignant using subjective assessment of grayscale and Doppler ultrasound findings: logistic regression models do not help. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 38(4), 456–465 (2011).
  • Van Calster B, Timmerman D, Valentin L et al. Triaging women with ovarian masses for surgery: observational diagnostic study to compare RCOG guidelines with an International Ovarian Tumour Analysis (IOTA) group protocol. BJOG 119(6), 662–671 (2012).
  • Van Calster B, Valentin L, Van Holsbeke C et al. A novel approach to predict the likelihood of specific ovarian tumor pathology based on serum CA-125: a multicenter observational study. Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev. 20(11), 2420–2428 (2011).
  • Van Calster B, Valentin L, Van Holsbeke C et al. Polytomous diagnosis of ovarian tumors as benign, borderline, primary invasive or metastatic: development and validation of standard and kernel-based risk prediction models. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 10, 96 (2010).
  • Timmerman D, Testa AC, Bourne T et al. Simple ultrasound-based rules for the diagnosis of ovarian cancer. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 31(6), 681–690 (2008).
  • Timmerman D, Ameye L, Fischerova D et al. Simple ultrasound rules to distinguish between benign and malignant adnexal masses before surgery: prospective validation by IOTA group. BMJ 341, c6839 (2010).
  • Fathallah K, Huchon C, Bats AS et al. External validation of simple ultrasound rules of Timmerman on 122 ovarian tumors. Gynecol. Obstet. Fertil. 39(9), 477–481 (2011).
  • Van Calster B, Timmerman D, Bourne T et al. Discrimination between benign and malignant adnexal masses by specialist ultrasound examination versus serum CA-125. J. Natl Cancer Inst. 99(22), 1706–1714 (2007).
  • Timmerman D, Van Calster B, Jurkovic D et al. Inclusion of CA-125 does not improve mathematical models developed to distinguish between benign and malignant adnexal tumors. J. Clin. Oncol. 25(27), 4194–4200 (2007).
  • Valentin L, Jurkovic D, Van Calster B et al. Adding a single CA 125 measurement to ultrasound imaging performed by an experienced examiner does not improve preoperative discrimination between benign and malignant adnexal masses. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 34(3), 345–354 (2009).
  • Alcázar JL, Guerriero S. Grayscale ultrasound versus CA-125 levels for predicting malignancy in adnexal masses. Int. J. Gynaecol. Obstet. 114(3), 290–291 (2011).
  • Alcázar JL, Guerriero S, Mínguez JÁ et al. Adding cancer antigen 125 screening to grayscale sonography for predicting specific diagnosis of benign adnexal masses in premenopausal women: is it worthwhile? J. Ultrasound Med. 30(10), 1381–1386 (2011).
  • Le T, Fayadh RA, Menard C et al. Variations in ultrasound reporting on patients referred for investigation of ovarian masses. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. Can. 30(10), 902–906 (2008).
  • Brown DL, Dudiak KM, Laing FC. Adnexal masses: US characterization and reporting. Radiology 254(2), 342–354 (2010).
  • Amor F, Vaccaro H, Alcázar JL, León M, Craig JM, Martinez J. Gynecologic imaging reporting and data system: a new proposal for classifying adnexal masses on the basis of sonographic findings. J. Ultrasound Med. 28(3), 285–291 (2009).
  • Amor F, Alcázar JL, Vaccaro H, León M, Iturra A. GI-RADS reporting system for ultrasound evaluation of adnexal masses in clinical practice: a prospective multicenter study. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 38(4), 450–455 (2011).
  • Marret H, Sauget S, Giraudeau B et al. Contrast-enhanced sonography helps in discrimination of benign from malignant adnexal masses. J. Ultrasound Med. 23(12), 1629–1639; quiz 1641 (2004).
  • Fleischer AC, Lyshchik A, Jones HW Jr et al. Contrast-enhanced transvaginal sonography of benign versus malignant ovarian masses: preliminary findings. J. Ultrasound Med. 27(7), 1011–1018; quiz 1019 (2008).
  • Fleischer AC, Lyshchik A, Jones HW 3rd et al. Diagnostic parameters to differentiate benign from malignant ovarian masses with contrast-enhanced transvaginal sonography. J. Ultrasound Med. 28(10), 1273–1280 (2009).
  • Testa AC, Timmerman D, Van Belle V et al. Intravenous contrast ultrasound examination using contrast-tuned imaging (CnTI) and the contrast medium SonoVue for discrimination between benign and malignant adnexal masses with solid components. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 34(6), 699–710 (2009).
  • Veyer L, Marret H, Bleuzen A, Simon E, Body G, Tranquart F. Preoperative diagnosis of ovarian tumors using pelvic contrast-enhanced sonography. J. Ultrasound Med. 29(7), 1041–1049 (2010).
  • Lucidarme O, Akakpo JP, Granberg S et al.; Ovarian HistoScanning Clinical Study Group. A new computer-aided diagnostic tool for non-invasive characterisation of malignant ovarian masses: results of a multicentre validation study. Eur. Radiol. 20(8), 1822–1830 (2010).
  • Vaes E, Manchanda R, Nir R et al. Mathematical models to discriminate between benign and malignant adnexal masses: potential diagnostic improvement using ovarian HistoScanning. Int. J. Gynecol. Cancer 21(1), 35–43 (2011).
  • Vaes E, Manchanda R, Autier P et al. Differential diagnosis of adnexal masses: sequential use of the risk of malignancy index and HistoScanning, a novel computer-aided diagnostic tool. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 39(1), 91–98 (2012).
  • Alcázar JL, Galán MJ, García-Manero M, Guerriero S. Three-dimensional sonographic morphologic assessment in complex adnexal masses: preliminary experience. J. Ultrasound Med. 22(3), 249–254 (2003).
  • Alcázar JL, García-Manero M, Galván R. Three-dimensional sonographic morphologic assessment of adnexal masses: a reproducibility study. J. Ultrasound Med. 26(8), 1007–1011 (2007).
  • Pascual MA, Graupera B, Hereter L, Rotili A, Rodriguez I, Alcázar JL. Intra- and interobserver variability of 2D and 3D transvaginal sonography in the diagnosis of benign versus malignant adnexal masses. J. Clin. Ultrasound 39(6), 316–321 (2011).
  • Alcázar JL, Jurado M. Three-dimensional ultrasound for assessing women with gynecological cancer: a systematic review. Gynecol. Oncol. 120(3), 340–346 (2011).
  • Alcázar JL, León M, Galván R, Guerriero S. Assessment of cyst content using mean gray value for discriminating endometrioma from other unilocular cysts in premenopausal women. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 35(2), 228–232 (2010).
  • Sladkevicius P, Jokubkiene L, Valentin L. Contribution of morphological assessment of the vessel tree by three-dimensional ultrasound to a correct diagnosis of malignancy in ovarian masses. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 30(6), 874–882 (2007).
  • Alcázar JL, Cabrera C, Galván R, Guerriero S. Three-dimensional power Doppler vascular network assessment of adnexal masses: intraobserver and interobserver agreement analysis. J. Ultrasound Med. 27(7), 997–1001 (2008).
  • Chase DM, Crade M, Basu T, Saffari B, Berman ML. Preoperative diagnosis of ovarian malignancy: preliminary results of the use of 3-dimensional vascular ultrasound. Int. J. Gynecol. Cancer. 19(3), 354–360 (2009).
  • Alcázar JL, Mercé LT, García Manero M. Three-dimensional power Doppler vascular sampling: a new method for predicting ovarian cancer in vascularized complex adnexal masses. J. Ultrasound Med. 24(5), 689–696 (2005).
  • Geomini PM, Kluivers KB, Moret E, Bremer GL, Kruitwagen RF, Mol BW. Evaluation of adnexal masses with three-dimensional ultrasonography. Obstet. Gynecol. 108(5), 1167–1175 (2006).
  • Jokubkiene L, Sladkevicius P, Valentin L. Does three-dimensional power Doppler ultrasound help in discrimination between benign and malignant ovarian masses? Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 29(2), 215–225 (2007).
  • Alcázar JL, Rodriguez D. Three-dimensional power Doppler vascular sonographic sampling for predicting ovarian cancer in cystic-solid and solid vascularized masses. J. Ultrasound Med. 28(3), 275–281 (2009).
  • Kudla MJ, Alcázar JL. Does sphere volume affect the performance of three-dimensional power Doppler virtual vascular sampling for predicting malignancy in vascularized solid or cystic-solid adnexal masses? Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 35(5), 602–608 (2010).
  • Welsh A. The questionable value of VOCAL indices of perfusion. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 36(1), 126–127; author reply 127 (2010).
  • Martins WP. Three-dimensional power Doppler: validity and reliability. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 36(5), 530–533 (2010).
  • Viñals F, Ascenzo R, Naveas R, Huggon I, Giuliano A. Fetal echocardiography at 11 + 0 to 13 + 6 weeks using four-dimensional spatiotemporal image correlation telemedicine via an Internet link: a pilot study. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 31(6), 633–638 (2008).
  • Alcázar JL, Iturra A, Sedda F et al. Three-dimensional volume off-line analysis as compared to real-time ultrasound for assessing adnexal masses. Eur. J. Obstet. Gynecol. Reprod. Biol. 161(1), 92–95 (2012).

Website

Reprints and Corporate Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

To request a reprint or corporate permissions for this article, please click on the relevant link below:

Order Reprints Request Corporate Permissions

Academic Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

Obtain permissions instantly via Rightslink by clicking on the button below:

Request Academic Permissions

If you are unable to obtain permissions via Rightslink, please complete and submit this Permissions form. For more information, please visit our Permissions help page.

Related research

People also read lists articles that other readers of this article have read.

Recommended articles lists articles that we recommend and is powered by our AI driven recommendation engine.

Cited by lists all citing articles based on Crossref citations.
Articles with the Crossref icon will open in a new tab.