Role of multi-detector computed tomography in the detection and differentiation of adnexal mass lesions


  • Ezzat Khalda Department of Radio-diagnosis, Sikkim Manipal Institute of Medical Sciences- Sikkim Manipal University, Tadong, Gangtok, Sikkim, India
  • Hafizur Rahman Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Sikkim Manipal Institute of Medical Sciences- Sikkim Manipal University, Tadong, Gangtok, Sikkim, India



Adnexal mass, Benign, Computed tomography, Malignant, Sensitivity, Specificity


Background: The objective of this study was to evaluate the role of multi-detector computed tomography (MDCT) in the detection and differentiation of adnexal masses using post-operative histopathology findings as the gold standard.

Methods: One hundred and forty five cases that were referred with a primary diagnosis of adnexal masses on clinical or USG examination were evaluated by MDCT in the Department of Radiodiagnosis from January 2013 to December 2013. One hundred twelve cases subsequently underwent surgical exploration and histopathological examination, which was used as a control for the evaluation of MDCT findings, were included in this study.

Results: Majority (54.5%) of the patients were in the age group of 31-50 years. MDCT detected   adnexal masses as malignant in 56 cases, while in other 56 cases it read adnexal masses as benign. Final histopathology revealed adnexal masses in 57 (51%) cases as malignant while in 55 (49%) cases as benign. There were three cases which on MDCT appeared as malignant were subsequently found to be benign in histopathology. Similarly there were four cases which on MDCT appeared as benign were subsequently proved to malignant in histopathology. The sensitivity, specificity, Positive predictive value and negative predictive value of MDCT for diagnosing a malignant adnexal mass was 93.0%, 94.5%, 94.6% and 92.8% respectively. MDCT findings more predictive of malignancy were solid or cystic-solid mass, necrosis in a solid lesion, cystic lesion with thick, irregular walls or septa, and/or with papillary projections. The presence of ascites, peritoneal metastases, and lymphadenopathy were also helpful to confirm malignancy.

Conclusions: MDCT is an excellent and accurate non-invasive modality in the detection and characterization of adnexal masses from benign and malignant


American Cancer Society. Cancer facts and figures 2007. Atlanta, Ga.: American Cancer Society; 2007. Available at: STT/CAFF2007PWSecured.pdf. Accessed on August 3, 2009.

Ries LA, Melbert D, Krapcho M, eds. SEER cancer statistics review, 1975-2004. Bethesda, Md.: National Cancer Institute. Available at: Accessed August 3, 2009.

Laufer MR, Goldstein DP. Ovarian cysts and neoplasms in infants, children, and adolescents. Up To Date. Available at: Accessed August 3, 2009.

Schultz KA, Ness KK, Nagarajan R, Steiner ME. Adnexal masses in infancy and childhood. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2006;49(3):464-79.

Cass DL, Hawkins E, Brandt ML. Surgery for ovarian masses in infants, children, and adolescents: 102 consecutive patients treated in a 15-year period. J Pediatr Surg. 2001;36(5):693-9.

Quint EH, Smith YR. Ovarian surgery in premenarchal girls. J Pediatr Adolesc Gynecol. 1999;12(1):27-9.

Stepanian M, Cohn DE. Gynecologic malignancies in adolescents. Adolesc Med Clin. 2004;15(3):549-68.

Sakala EP, Leon ZA, Rouse GA. Management of antenatally diagnosed fetal ovarian cysts. Obstet Gynecol Surv. 1991;46(7):407-14.

Stenchever MA. Comprehensive Gynecology. 4th ed. St. Louis, Mo.: Mosby; 2001.

Kinkel K, Lu Y, Mehdizade A, Pelte MF, Hricak H. Indeterminate ovarian mass at US: incremental value of second imaging test for characterization meta-analysis and Bayesian analysis. Radiology. 2005;236(1):85-94.

Dressman HK, Berchuck A, Chan G, Zhai J, Bild A, Sayer R, et al. An integrated genomic-based approach to individualized treatment of patients with advanced-stage ovarian cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25:517-25.

Curtin JP. Management of the adnexal mass. Gynecol Oncol. 1994;55:S42-46.

NIH consensus conference. Ovarian cancer. Screening, treatment, and follow-up. NIH Consensus Development Panel on Ovarian Cancer. JAMA. 1995;273:491-7.

Goff BA, Mandel LS, Melancon CH, Muntz HG. Frequency of symptoms of ovarian cancer in women presenting to primary care clinics. JAMA. 2004;291:2705-12.

Padilla LA, Radosevich DM, Milad MP. Accuracy of the pelvic examination in detecting adnexal masses. Obstet Gynecol. 2000;96:593-8.

Bhosale P, Iyer R. Diagnostic imaging in gynecologic malignancy. Minerva Ginecol. 2008;60:143-54.

Heinz-Peer G, Memarsadeghi M, Niederle B. Imaging of adrenal masses. Curr Opin Urol. 2007;17:32-8.

Dalrymple NC, Prasad SR, Freckleton MW, Chintapalli KN. Informatics in radiology (infoRAD): introduction to the language of three-dimensional imaging with multidetector CT. Radiographics. 2005;25:1409-28.

Buy JN, Ghossain MA, Sciot C, Bazot M, Guinet C, Prevot S, et al. Epithelial tumors of the ovary: CT findings and correlation with US. Radiology. 1991;178:811-8.

Byrom J, Widjaja E, Redman CW, Jones PW, Tebby S. Can pre-operative computed tomography predict resectability of ovarian carcinoma at primary laparotomy? BJOG. 2002;109:369-75.

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;3:123-6.

Petru E, Schmidt F, Mikosch P, Pickel H, Lahousen M, Tamussino K, et al. Abdominopelvic computed tomography in the preoperative evaluation of suspected ovarian masses. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 1992;2(5):252-5.

Tsili AC, Tsampoulas C, Charisiadi A, Kalef-Ezra J, Dousias V, Paraskevaidis E, et al. Adnexal masses: accuracy of detection and differentiation with multidetector computed tomography. Gynecol Oncol. 2008;110:22-31.

Verit FF, Pehlivan M. Transvagınal ultrasound and computed tomography combıned wıth ca- 125 determınatıons in preoperatıve evaluatıon of ovarıan masses in premenopausal women. Harran Üniv. Tıp Fakültesi Dergisi. 2007;4(2):50-4.

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. Euro Radiology. 2008;18(5):1049-57.

Tsili AC, Dalkalitsis N, Paraskevaidis E, Tsampoulas K. Multi-detector CT features of benign adnexal lesions. Acad Radiol. 2010;17:31-8.

Firoozabadi RD, Zarchi MK, Mansuarian HR, Moghadam BR, Teimoori S, Naseri A. Evaluation of diagnostic value of CT scan, physical examination and ultrasound based on pathological findings in patients with pelvic masses. Asian Pacific J Cancer Prev. 2011;12:1745-7.

Gatreh-Samani F, Tarzamni MK, Olad-Sahebmadarek, Dastranj, Afrough. Accuracy of 64-multidetector computed tomography in diagnosis of adnexal tumors. J Ovarian Research. 2011;4:15.

Khattak YJ, Hafeez S, Alam T, Beg M, Awais M, Masroor I. Ovarian masses: is multi-detector computed tomography a reliable imaging modality? Asian Pacific J Cancer Prev. 2013;14(4):2627-30.

Jung SI, Park HS, Kim YJ, Jeon HS. Multidetector computed tomography for the assessment of adnexal mass: is unenhanced CT scan necessary? Korean J Radiol. 2014;15(1):72-9.






Original Research Articles