Published: 2021-02-25

Access the diagnostic reliability and imaging evaluation of adnexal masses diagnosis ultrasonography, magnetic resonance imaging and computed tomography

Nitin Wadnere, Ajit Ahuja, Simran Behl


Background: Objective of the study was to evaluate role of diagnostic reliability of morphological characteristic of ovarian and adnexal masses to compare and correlated in sensitivity of ultrasonography, computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging (USG with CT and MRI).

Methods: This study was conducted in department of radiodiagnosis, Sri Aurobindo medical college and PG institute, Indore from August 2019 to September 2020. A total of 100 OPD patients of adnexal masses including both premenopausal and postmenopausal women. All 100 patients had undergone sonographic assessment and CA-125 levels were assessed; where 70 patients were correlated with CT and 30 patients were correlated with MRI with a standardized research protocol

Results: A total of 100 patients included in the study. The mean age was 42.05±2.3.  68 (68%) patients were Premenopausal and 32 (32%) patients post-menopausal. 19 (19%) of patients had family history of ovarian carcinoma, whereas 81 (81%) of patients had negative family history of ovarian carcinoma. 32 (47%) patients in premenopausal group had increased Ca-125 levels, whereas 18 (56.2%) patients in postmenopausal had increased Ca-125 levels.

Conclusions: MRI proved to be highly sensitive and accurate in differentiating benign and malignant lesions of adnexal masses which were indeterminate on ultrasonography examination. Thus, MRI can be considered as second most confirmatory tool followed by tissue diagnosis in women with indeterminate masses.



Ultrasonography, Computed tomography, Magnetic resonance imaging

Full Text:



Sohaib SA, Mills TD, Sahdev A, Webb JA, Vantrappen PO, Jacobs IJ et al. The role of magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasound in patients with adnexal masses. Clin Radiol. 2005;60:340-8.

Adusumilli S, Hussain HK, Caoili EM, Weadock WJ, Murray JP, Johnson TD et al. MRI of sonographically indeterminate adnexal masses. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2006;187:732-40.

Brown DL, Dudiak KM, Laing FC. Adnexal Masses: US Characterization and Reporting. Radiology. 2010;254(2):342-54.

Van Holsbeke C, Yazbek J, Holland TK, Daemen A, De Moor B, Testa AC et al. Real-time ultrasound vs. evaluation of static images in the preoperative assessment of adnexal masses. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2008;32(6):828-31.

Tsili AC, Tsampoulas C, Argyropoulou M, Navrozoglou I, Alamanos Y, Paraskevaidis E et al. Comparative evaluation of multidetector CT and MR imaging in the differentiation of adnexal masses. Eur Radiol. 2008;18(5):1049-57.

Saini A, Dina R, Angus McIndoe G, Patrick Soutter W, Gishen P, Nandita M et al. Characterization of Adnexal Masses with MRI. AJR. 2005;184(3):1004-9.

Kaijser J, Bourne T, Valentin L, Sayasneh A, Van Holsbeke C, Vergote I et al. Improving strategies for diagnosing ovarian cancer: a summary of the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis (IOTA) studies. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2013;41(1):9-20.

Donald McJM, Doran S, Christopher P, Simone De, Fred R et al. Predicting Risk of Malignancy in Adnexal Masses. Obstet Gynecol. 2010;115(4):687-94.

Terzic M, Dotlic J, Brndusic N, Likic L, Andrijasevic S, Arsenovic N et al. Histopathological diagnoses of adnexal masses: which parameters are relevant in preoperative assessment? Ginekol Pol. 2013;84(8):700-8.

Timmerman D, Testa AC, Bourne T, Ferrazzi E, Ameye L, Konstantinovic ML et al. 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. 2005;23(34):8794-801.

Valentini AL, Gui B, Miccò M, Mingote MC, De Gaetano AM, Ninivaggi V et al. Benign and Suspicious Ovarian Masses-MR Imaging Criteria for Characterization: Pictorial Review. J Oncol. 2012;2012:481806.

Iyer VR, Lee SI. MRI, CT, and PET/CT for ovarian cancer detection and adnexal lesion characterization. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2010;194(2):311-21.