4.6 Article

Imaging in gynecological disease (7): clinical and ultrasound features of Brenner tumors of the ovary

期刊

ULTRASOUND IN OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY
卷 40, 期 6, 页码 706-713

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1002/uog.11149

关键词

Brenner tumor; ovarian neoplasms; preoperative diagnosis; ultrasonography

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives To describe clinical and ultrasound features of Brenner tumors of the ovary. Methods In this retrospective study, the databases of the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis (IOTA) studies and one tertiary center were searched to identify patients who had undergone an ultrasound scan before surgery for an adnexal mass that proved to be a Brenner tumor. Twenty-eight patients with 29 Brenner tumors were included, most of which had been collected within the framework of the IOTA studies. An experienced ultrasound examiner reviewed available ultrasound images (available for 14 tumors), searching for a pattern specific to Brenner tumors. Results Most patients were postmenopausal and asymptomatic. Twenty-four (83%) tumors were benign, two (7%) were borderline and three (10%) were malignant. Most benign tumors (17/24, 71%) contained solid components and manifested no or minimal blood flow on Doppler examination (19/24, 79%). Information about calcifications was available for 15 benign tumors, and in 13 (87%) calcifications were present. The five borderline and invasively malignant tumors contained solid components less often than did the benign ones (3/5, 60%) and were more richly vascularized on Doppler examination. Information about calcifications was available for four borderline or invasively malignant tumors, and in three (75%) calcifications were present. Conclusion We failed to demonstrate ultrasound features specific to Brenner tumors. A prospective study is needed to determine if ultrasound features of calcifications can discriminate between Brenner tumors and other types of ovarian tumor. Copyright (c) 2012 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据