Comparison of ultrasound and computed tomography in the diagnosis of malignant ovarian tumours at tertiary care center

Authors

  • Mozaffar Danish Department of Radiodiagnosis, Narayan Medical College and Hospital, Bihar, India
  • Shreya Bhat Department of Radiodiagnosis, Narayan Medical College and Hospital, Bihar, India
  • Asif Khursheed Department of Radiodiagnosis, Narayan Medical College and Hospital, Bihar, India
  • M. Shamim Ahmad Department of Radiodiagnosis, Narayan Medical College and Hospital, Bihar, India

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18203/2320-1770.ijrcog20241952

Keywords:

Malignant ovarian tumours, CT, Ultrasound, CA-125

Abstract

Background: Accurate diagnosis of ovarian tumours is a diagnostic challenge. Multiple modes are used for the early detection of ovarian tumours. Early detection provides a survival advantage. Ultrasonography (USG), computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) are important imaging modalities in this regard. This study aims to compare the diagnostic accuracy of USG and CT imaging in the detection of malignant ovarian tumours.

Materials: An observational cross-sectional study is conducted in the department of radiodiagnosis of Narayan medical college and hospital, Bihar over a period of 18 months from August 2021 to March 2024. Fifty-three patients with suspected ovarian malignancy who were not pregnant or had contraindications for administration of contrast media were included in the study. USG, CT and histopathology reports were compared for diagnostic accuracy with respect to different components.

Results: Mean age of the patients was seen to be 49.6±13.8 years. Abdominal pain was the most common presentation Majority of the patients had vascular lesions with a well-differentiated margin, heterogenous enhancement and septations. USG and CT agree almost perfectly in, identifying septations, calcification, and in differentiating margin of the tumours and very poorly for the identification of lymphadenopathy. CT had better sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV) when compared to USG for diagnosis of ovarian malignancies

Conclusions: CT has superior diagnostic accuracy compared to USG for diagnosis of ovarian tumours. However, USG provides similar diagnostic accuracy for identifying septations, calcification, and in differentiating margins of tumours.

References

Siegel R, Naishadham D, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2012. CA Cancer J Clin. 2012;62(1):10.

Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Ervik M, Dikshit R, Eser S, Mathers C, et al. Estimated cancer incidence, mortality and prevalence in 2012. Int J Cancer. 2015;136(5):E359-86.

Basu P, De P, Mandal S, Ray K, Biswas J. Study of ′patterns of care′ of ovarian cancer patients in a specialized cancer institute in Kolkata, eastern India. Indian J Cancer. 2009;46(1):28-33.

Kurtz AB, Tsimikas JV, Tempany CMC, Hamper UM, Arger PH, Bree RL, 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. 1999;212(1):19-27.

Mubarak F, Alam MS, Akhtar W, Hafeez S, Nizamuddin N. Role of multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) in patients with ovarian masses. Int J Womens Health. 2011;3(1):123-6.

Mathieu KB, Bedi DG, Thrower SL, Qayyum A, Bast RC. Screening for ovarian cancer: imaging challenges and opportunities for improvement. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2018;51(3):293-303.

Foti PV, Attinà G, Spadola S, Caltabiano R, Farina R, Palmucci S, et al. MR imaging of ovarian masses: classification differential diagnosis. Insights Imaging. 2016;7(1):21-41.

Taylor EC, Irshaid L, Mathur M. Multimodality Imaging Approach to Ovarian Neoplasms with Pathologic Correlation. RadioGraphics. 2021;41(1):289-315.

Johnson RJ. Radiology in the management of ovarian cancer. Clin Radiol. 1993;48(2):75-82.

Jung SE, Lee JM, Rha SE, Byun JY, Jung JI, Hahn ST. CT and MR Imaging of Ovarian Tumors with Emphasis on Differential Diagnosis. RadioGraphics. 2002;22(6):1305-25.

Arora M, Thakker VD, Sindhwani G, Gogoi RK. Ovarian Masses: Hitting the Oncological Dart with Ultrasoundand CT-A Comparative Study in Remote Northeast Indian Town. Int J Anat Radiol Surg. 2017;6(2):68-74.

Nilufer M, Shripad SH, Lavanya R, Shyamala G, Prashant A. Comparison of CA-125, conventional ultrasound and CT imaging in diagnosis and staging of ovarian cancer correlated with surgico-pathological findings. Int J Reproduct Contracept Obstet Gynecol. 2014;3(4):924-3.

Bhimani D, Garasiya V, Raychaudhuri C. Role of USG and CT scan in evaluating ovarian lesions. IAIM. 2018;5(5):156-66.

Manda C, Madhavi D. Comparative study of USG and CT in the evaluation of suspicious ovarian masses. Int J Gen Med Pharm. 2016;5(2):39-46.

Shazia M, Khan SA, Hussain M, Adil SO. Role of multidetector computed tomography in evaluation of ovarian lesions in women clinically suspected of malignancy. Asian Pacific J Cancer Prev. 2017;18(8):2059-62.

Downloads

Published

2024-07-06

Issue

Section

Original Research Articles