Radiology, Vol 186, 697-704, Copyright © 1993 by Radiological Society of North America

ARTICLES

Adnexal masses: comparison of specificity of endovaginal US and pelvic MR imaging

KA Jain, DL Friedman, TW Pettinger, R Alagappan, RB Jeffrey Jr and FG Sommer
Department of Radiology, University of California, Davis, Sacramento 95817.

In a prospective study, 32 women with suspected pelvic masses at physical examination underwent both endovaginal ultrasound (US) and magnetic resonance (MR) imaging to compare their ability in diagnosis of adnexal masses. Criteria for the diagnosis of various types of adnexal masses with MR imaging and endovaginal US were prospectively defined, and the ability of either modality to allow a specific diagnosis was assessed. For each modality, measures of sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were obtained. Results indicated higher diagnostic capability of endovaginal US for simple cysts (five of five), hemorrhagic cysts (eight of nine), endometriomas (nine of 14), and ovarian carcinomas (three of three). MR imaging demonstrated higher diagnostic capability for dermoids (three of three). MR imaging and endovaginal US showed equal diagnostic capability for pedunculated fibroids (two of two). For all masses, observers, and observations, the overall sensitivity of endovaginal US was 76% versus 49% for MR imaging, and the overall accuracy of endovaginal US was 83% versus 70% for MR imaging. The authors suggest that endovaginal US is a better modality than MR imaging for the assessment of suspected pelvic masses.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				S. R. Ismail An Evaluation of the Incidence of Right-Sided Ovarian Cystic Teratoma Visualized on Sonograms Journal of Diagnostic Medical Sonography, July 1, 2005; 21(4): 336 - 342. [Abstract] [PDF]

				M. D. Patel, V. A. Feldstein, and R. A. Filly The Likelihood Ratio of Sonographic Findings for the Diagnosis of Hemorrhagic Ovarian Cysts J. Ultrasound Med., May 1, 2005; 24(5): 607 - 614. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. Fenchel, D. Grab, K. Nuessle, J. Kotzerke, A. Rieber, R. Kreienberg, H.-J. Brambs, and S. N. Reske Asymptomatic Adnexal Masses: Correlation of FDG PET and Histopathologic Findings Radiology, June 1, 2002; 223(3): 780 - 788. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. Rieber, K. Nussle, I. Stohr, D. Grab, S. Fenchel, R. Kreienberg, S. N. Reske, and H.-J. Brambs Preoperative Diagnosis of Ovarian Tumors with MR Imaging: Comparison with Transvaginal Sonography, Positron Emission Tomography, and Histologic Findings Am. J. Roentgenol., July 1, 2001; 177(1): 123 - 129. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				Y.-Y. Jeong, E. K. Outwater, and H. K. Kang Imaging Evaluation of Ovarian Masses RadioGraphics, September 1, 2000; 20(5): 1445 - 1470. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				H. Hricak, M. Chen, F. V. Coakley, K. Kinkel, K. K. Yu, G. Sica, P. Bacchetti, and C. B. Powell Complex Adnexal Masses: Detection and Characterization with MR Imaging-Multivariate Analysis1 Radiology, January 1, 2000; 214(1): 39 - 46. [Abstract] [Full Text]

				A. B. Kurtz, J. V. Tsimikas, C. M. C. Tempany, U. M. Hamper, P. H. Arger, R. L. Bree, R. J. Wechsler, I. R. Francis, J. E. Kuhlman, E. S. Siegelman, et al. Diagnosis and Staging of Ovarian Cancer: Comparative Values of Doppler and Conventional US, CT, and MR Imaging Correlated with Surgery and Histopathologic Analysis—Report of the Radiology Diagnostic Oncology Group Radiology, July 1, 1999; 212(1): 19 - 27. [Abstract] [Full Text]

				T. A. Tukeva, H. J. Aronen, P. T. Karjalainen, P. Molander, T. Paavonen, and J. Paavonen MR Imaging in Pelvic Inflammatory Disease: Comparison with Laparoscopy and US Radiology, January 1, 1999; 210(1): 209 - 216. [Abstract] [Full Text]