Sonomorphology and colour flow Doppler studies in differentiating between benign and malignant ovarian masses


  • Shyamala Jothy M. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, RajaMirasudhar Hospital, Government Thanjavur Medical College, Thanjavur, Tamilnadu, India
  • Anju Padmasekar Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, RajaMirasudhar Hospital, Government Thanjavur Medical College, Thanjavur, Tamilnadu, India



HPE, PI, RI, Ultrasonography


Background: Ovarian cancer is the most frequent cause of death from Gynaecological malignancies in the world. Most patients with epithelial ovarian cancer are asymptomatic in early stage disease and usually present with stage III or IV disease. There are various screening methods for detection of ovarian cancer like bimanual pelvic examination, ultrasound examination (TVS and TAS) with or without color Doppler flow imaging and measurement of various circulating proteins like CA 125. The Purpose of a study is to determine optimal cut off point for a morphological scoring system and color flow directed Doppler values to differentiate benign and malignant ovarian masses.

Methods: This study was done at Department of obstetrics and Gynaecology, Government Rajah Mirasudhar Teaching Hospital attached to Government Thanjavur Medical College, Thanjavur, Tamilnadu, India during the period of June – 2011 to October – 2012. This study consisted of 73 patients, 3 patients were not operated as they were not fit for surgery for medical reasons. Hence 70 patients were included in the study. A note was made of their main symptoms at admission, Parity, menopausal status, family history of carcinoma. Patients admitted with diagnosis of ovarian masses and clearly ovarian by sonomorphology and surgery were only included in this study. Morphological Score, RI and PI were calculated. All patients underwent exploratory laparotomy with surgical removal of the tumor. The final diagnosis obtained based on HPE were classified as either benign or malignant. The score of each mass and the Doppler values were assessed individually and in combination with regard to its relationship to final diagnosis.

Results: In summary the resistance to flow measurement obtained by Doppler had a higher sensitivity and specificity compared to the morphological scoring system in differentiating benign and malignant ovarian masses. The combination of morphological score and Doppler Measurements improved the specificity positive predictive value for differentiating benign and malignant ovarian masses.

Conclusions: The combination of ultrasound and Doppler values is better in differentiating benign from malignant ovarian masses. The cut off point for ultrasound guided morphological scoring system was 4 and Doppler velocimetry for differentiating benign and malignant ovarian masses was a RI of 0.55 and PI of 0.8.


Finkler NJ, Benacerrat B, Lavin PT, wokcie chowskic, Knapp RC, Comparison of serum Ca 125, clinical impression and ultrasound in the preoperative evaluation of ovarian masses. Obset Gynecol. 1988;72;659-64.

Bourne T, Campbell S, Steer C, whitehead MI, Collins WP, Transvaginal color flow imaging a possible new screening technique for ovarian cancer. Br Med J. 1989;299:1367-70.

Granberg S, Willand M, Jansson I, Macroscopic characterization of ovarian tumors and the relation to histological diagnosis criteria to be used for ultrasound evaluation. Gynecol Oncol. 1989;35:139-44.

Kounings PP. Campbell K, Mishell DR, Grimes DA, Relative recognition of primary ovarian neoplasia: A 10 year review. Obset Gynecol. 1989:921-6.

Campbell S, Royston P, Bhan V. Detection of ovarian malignancy by TAS. BMJ. 1990;390:1663-73.

Einhorn N, Bast RC Jr, Knapp RC. Prospective evaluation of ultrasound and serum of Cal25 in patients with ovarian tumors. Obset Gynecol. 1990:67-414.

Fleisher AC, Entman SS. Sonographic evaluation of the ovary and related disorders. Diagnostic ultrasound applied to obstetrics and gynecology, 4th edition. 2014.

Jacobs J. A risk of malignancy index incorporation ultrasound and menopausal status for the accurate preoperative diagnosis of ovarian cancer. Br J Obset Gynecol. 1990;97:922-9.

Kujat A, Predanic M. New Scoring system for prediction of malignancy based on transvaginal color Doppler sonography. ultrasound Med. 1990.

Van Nagell JR, Jr Higgins RV, Donaldson ES. TVS as a screening method for ovarian cancer. A report of the 1st thousand cases screened. Cancer. 1990;65:573-7.

Fleisher AC, Rogers WH, Rao BK et al. Transvaginal color Doppler sonography and ovarian masses with pathologic correlation. Obste Gynecol. 1991:275-278.

Fleischer AC, Rogers WH, Rao BK et al assessment of ovarian tumor vascularity with transvaginal color Doppler sonography. J Ultrasound Med. 1991;10:563-8.

Kurak A, Zalud I, Afirevic Z. Evaluation of adneral masses by transvaginal color ultrasound J ultrasound Med. 1991;10:295-7.

Sasonne AM, Timor – Tritsch IE, Arterr A, Wisthoff C, Warren WB. Transvaginal sonography charact of ovarian disease evaluation of a new scoring system to predict malignancy. Obset. Gynecol. 1991:70-76.

Westhoff C, Randall Mc. Ovarian ca screening potential effect on mortality Am J Gynecol. 1991;165;502-5.

Weiner Z, Thaler I, Beck D, Rotterm S, Deutsch M, Brandees JM. Differentiating malignant from benign ovarian tumours with TVS color flow imaging Obset Gynecol. 1992;79;159-162.

Tekay A, Jeupplia P, Validity of PI and RI in classification of adnexal masses with TVS color Doppler USG ultrasound obsetet gynecol. 1992;2:338-44.

Kawai M, Kano T, Kikkawa F, Maeda O, Oguchi F, Transvaginal Doppler ultrasound with color flow imaging in detection ovarian cancer. Obset gynecol. 1992;79:163-7.

Hata K, Hata T, Manabe A, Sugimura K, Kitao M. A critical of transvaginal Doppler studies transvaginal sonography and magnetic resonance imaging and Ca 125 in detecting ovarian tumors. GYMECP. 1992;80:922-6.

Davies AP, Jacobs I, Woolas R, Fish A, Oram D. The adnexal mass: Benign or malignant? Evalution of a risk of malignancy index. Br J Obtet Gynecol. 1993;100:927-31.

Depriest PD, Shenson BS, Frient A. A morphology index based on sonographic findings in ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 1993;51:7-11.

Fleisher AC, Rogers WH, Keppic DM, Williams LL, Jones HW. Color Doppler sonography of ovarian masses; a multiparameter analysis. J. Ultrasound Med. 1993;12:41-8.

Granberg S, Relationship of macroscopic appearance histologic features of ovarian tumors. Clinical Obstetrics and Gynaecology. 1993;26:363-75.

Jacobs I, Davies AP, Stabsle I. Prevalence screening for ovarian cancer in postmenopausal women by Ca 125 measurement and ultrasound. BMJ. 1993;306:1030-4.

Timor – Tritch H. Lerner JP, Monteagudo A, Santos R. TVS characterization of ovarian masses by means of color flow directed Doppler measurements and a morphologic scoring system. Am. J. Obstet Gynocol. 1993;163:909-13.

Lerner J, Timor Tritsch J, Federman A, Abramovich G, Transvaginal ultrasonographic characterization of ovaraian masses with an improved weighted scoring system. Am. J. Obset. Gynecol. 1994;170:81-6.

Valentinb L, Sladkevicius P, Marsul K. Limited contribution of Doppler velocimetry to the Differential diagnosis of extract pelvic tumors. Obstet Gynecol 1994;83:425-33.

Botta G, Zarcone R. Transvaginal examination of ovarian masses in premenopausal women. Eur J Obstet Gynaecol Reprod Bio. 1995;62:27-4L.

Tepper R, Altaros M, Zales Y, Sonographic and Doppler charactreristics of ovarian tumor of low malignant potential. J Clin USG. 1997;25(2):57-61.

Brown DL, Doubilet PM, Miller FH, Benign and malignant ovarian masses: Selection of the most discriminating grey scale and Doppler sonographic features. 1993.






Original Research Articles