Comparison of three sonographic morphology indices and evaluation of its accuracy in predicting ovarian malignancy
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18203/2320-1770.ijrcog20260158Keywords:
Malignancy index, Morphology index, Ovarian tumorAbstract
Background: Identifying whether an adnexal mass is benign or malignant is crucial because it guides surgeons regarding the type of operative intervention needed. The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of three sonographic morphology indices (DePriest, Sassone, and Ueland) and the risk of malignancy index for preoperative triaging of adnexal masses and comparing their effectiveness in predicting ovarian malignancy.
Methods: A prospective cross-sectional study conducted at Paropakar Maternity and Women’s Hospital from August 2021 to October 2022 underwent an ultrasound scan 48 hours prior to surgery. The specificity, sensitivity, negative predictive value, positive predictive value, and accuracy of all three morphological indices and the risk of malignancy index were calculated and compared.
Results: Among 107 patients, 69 (52.3%) had benign tumors, 11 (8.55%) were borderline, and 27 (20.8%) were malignant. The most common malignant ovarian tumor was serous cystadenocarcinoma (14 cases), followed by immature teratoma (5 cases) and granulosa cell tumor (4 cases). The sensitivity of the DePriest, Sassone, and Ueland morphology indices, along with the RMI, was 77.7%, 73%, 85%, and 65%, respectively. Their corresponding specificities were 82.3%, 86.25%, 78.75%, and 73.7%. In terms of accuracy, DePriest achieved 81.48%, Sassone 83%, Ueland 80.37%, and RMI only 74%.
Conclusions: Although the Ueland morphology index was the most sensitive in predicting ovarian malignancy, the preoperative diagnostic accuracy was similar across all three morphology indices, while it was notably lower for the risk of malignancy index (RMI).
Metrics
References
American Cancer Society statistics Center, 2022. Available from: https://cancerstatisticscenter. cancer.org/. Accessed on 11 July 2025.
Huang Z, Neupane PR, Steel R, Poudel JK. Hospital-Based Cancer Incidence in Nepal from 2010 to 2013. Nepal J Epidemiol. 2017;7(1):659-66. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3126/nje.v7i1.17759
Shah S, Hishikar VA. Incidence and management of ovarian tumors. Bombay Hosp J. 2008;50:30-3.
Sokkary HH. The efficacy of ultrasonographic morphological index using Depriest score in ovarian cancer prediction. Int J Reprod Contracept Obstet Gynaecol. 2016;5(12):4200-5.
Fischerova D, Burgetova A. Imaging techniques for the evaluation of cancer.Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2014;28(5):697-720. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2014.04.006
Ferrazzi E, Lissoni AA, Dordoni D. Differentiation of small adnexal masses based on morphological characteristics of transvaginal sonographic imaging. J Ultrasound Med. 2005;24:1467-73. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7863/jum.2005.24.11.1467
Sassone AM, Tritsch ET, Artner A, Westhoff C, Warren WB. transvaginal sonographic characterization of ovarian tumor. Evaluation of new scoring system to predict ovarian malignancy. Obstet Gynecol. 1991;78(1):70-6.
Klangsin S, Suntharasaj T, Suwanrath C, KOr-analtakul O, Prasartwanakit V. Comparison of the five sonographic morphology scoring system for the diagnosis of malignant ovarian tumors. Gynecol Obstet Invest. 2013;76:248-53. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1159/000355563
Ueland FR, De Priest PD, Pavlik EJ, Kryscio RJ, Nagell JR. Preoperative differentiation of malignant from benign ovarian tumors: the efficacy of morphological indexing and doppler flow sonography. Gynecol Oncol. 2003;91(1):46-50. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0090-8258(03)00414-1
Aishwarya J, Sasikala R, Dilshath S. efficacyof morphological indexing of ovarian tumor: preoperative determination of risk of malignancy. Int J Reprod Contracept Obstet Gynecol. 2017:6(8):3458-63. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18203/2320-1770.ijrcog20173463
Jha R, Karki S. Histological pattern of ovarian tumors and their age distribution. Nepal Med Coll J. 2008;10(2):81-5.
Pilli GS, Patil PV, Karadesai SG. Pre-operative diagnosis of epithelial ovarian tumors: are we on the right track? Indian J Public Health Res Dev. 2015;6(4):210-4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5958/0976-5506.2015.00228.4
Aly Hassan El Sokkary HH. The efficacy of ultrasonographic morphological index using Depriest score in ovarian cancer prediction. Int J Reprod Contracept Obstet Gynecol. 2016;5(12):4200-5. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18203/2320-1770.ijrcog20164315
Dora SK, Dandapat AB, Pande B, Hota JP. A prospective study to evaluate the risk malignancy index and its diagnostic implication in patients with suspected ovarian mass. J Ovarian Res. 2017;10(1):55. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13048-017-0351-2
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
