HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Figures Only Full Text All Versions of this Article: 2242911110v1 224/2/429    most recent Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Muradali, D. Articles by Wilson, S. R. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Muradali, D. Articles by Wilson, S. R.

Echogenic Ovarian Foci without Shadowing: Are They Caused by Psammomatous Calcifications?¹

¹ From the Departments of Medical Imaging (D.M., E.H., S.R.W.) and Pathology (T.C.), University Health Network, Toronto General Hospital, 200 Elizabeth St, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5G 2C4; and Department of Medical Biophysics, University of Toronto, Imaging Research, Sunnybrook and Women’s College Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada (P.N.B.). Received June 25, 2001; revision requested July 27; revision received November 7; accepted January 7, 2002. Address correspondence to D.M. (e-mail: derek.muradali@uhn.on.ca).

PURPOSE: To determine and report the spectrum of ultrasonographic appearances of echogenic ovarian foci (EOF) without shadowing in otherwise normal ovaries and the histopathologic and physical characteristics of these foci.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: The appearances of foci on transvaginal pelvic sonograms obtained in 189 patients with EOF were prospectively analyzed. The foci were classified according to bilaterality, size, number (<5, 5–10, or >10), and location (peripheral, central, or diffuse). At histopathologic analysis, resected normal ovaries, seven with and 10 without echogenic foci, in a water bath were scanned. The foci were then localized for histopathologic correlation. To assess the physical properties of the foci, tissue-mimicking water- and glycerol-based phantoms, with voids of different diameters, in a water bath were scanned with 8- and 70-MHz transducers.

RESULTS: At appearance analysis, EOF (mean diameter, 1.8 mm ± 0.6 [SD]) were detected unilaterally in 103 (54.5%) of 189 patients. EOF were distributed peripherally in 183 (66.5%), centrally in 15 (5.5%), and diffusely in 77 (28.0%) of 275 ovaries. There were fewer than five foci in 123 (44.7%), five to 10 foci in 91 (33.1%), and more than 10 foci in 61 (22.2%) of 275 ovaries. At histopathologic analysis of the seven ovaries with EOF, the foci had tiny cysts with no evidence of calcifications. A single cyst cluster was identified in two of 10 ovaries that did not have echogenic foci. At physical property analysis, single echogenic foci were associated with specular reflection from the walls of unresolved cysts that were comparable in size to the ultrasound wavelength (about 0.50 mm).

CONCLUSION: EOF without shadowing are caused by a specular reflection from the walls of tiny unresolved benign cysts rather than by psammomatous calcifications.

© RSNA, 2002

Index terms: Ovary, abnormalities, 852.817 • Ovary, neoplasms, 852.311 • Ovary, US, 852.12985, 852.12989, 855.12985, 855.12989 • Ultrasound (US), transvaginal, 852.12985, 852.12989, 855.12985, 855.12989

This article has been cited by other articles:

				D. L. Brown, M. C. Frates, M. G. Muto, and W. R. Welch Small Echogenic Foci in the Ovaries: Correlation With Histologic Findings J. Ultrasound Med., February 1, 2004; 23(2): 307 - 313. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]