4.5 Article

Three-dimensional sonographic morphologic assessment in complex adnexal masses -: Preliminary experience

Journal

JOURNAL OF ULTRASOUND IN MEDICINE
Volume 22, Issue 3, Pages 249-254

Publisher

AMER INST ULTRASOUND MEDICINE
DOI: 10.7863/jum.2003.22.3.249

Keywords

adnexal masses; sonography; three-dimensional; two-dimensional

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective. To evaluate the role of three-dimensional transvaginal sonography in assessing complex adnexal masses. Methods. Forty-one women (mean age, 49.5 years; range, 23-75 years) with the diagnosis of complex adnexal masses on the basis of two-dimensional transvaginal sonography were reevaluated by three-dimensional transvaginal sonography. Two different sonologists evaluated the two- and three-dimensional transvaginal sonograms. Criteria indicative of malignancy included the presence of gross papillary projections, solid areas, and solid echogenicity for both techniques. Three women (7%) had bilateral masses, giving a total of 44 masses that were ultimately assessed. A definitive histologic diagnosis was obtained in every case after surgical tumor removal. Results. Twenty-one tumors (47.7%) were proved malignant, and 23 (52.3%) were benign. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and accuracy for two- and three-dimensional transvaginal sonography were 90%, 61%, 68%, 87%, and 75% and 100%, 78%, 81%, 100%, and 89%, respectively. There were no statistical differences between two- and three-dimensional transvaginal sonography (McNemar test, P =.687). The agreement between both examiners was high (kappa index = 0.71). Conclusions. The use of three-dimensional transvaginal sonography does not significantly improve the two-dimensional transvaginal sonographic morphologic assessment of complex adnexal masses; however, we found it useful for reinforcing initial diagnostic impressions.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available