Adnexal masses

Comparison of specificity of endovaginal US and pelvic MR imaging

Kiran A Jain, D. L. Friedman, T. W. Pettinger, R. Alagappan, R. B. Jeffrey, F. G. Sommer

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

77 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

In a prospective study, 32 women with suspected pelvic masses at physical examination underwent both endovaginal ultrasound (US) and magnetic resonance (MR) imaging to compare their ability in diagnosis of adnexal masses. Criteria for the diagnosis of various types of adnexal masses with MR imaging and endovaginal US were prospectively defined, and the ability of either modality to allow a specific diagnosis was assessed. For each modality, measures of sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were obtained. Results indicated higher diagnostic capability of endovaginal US for simple cysts (five of five), hemorrhagic cysts (eight of nine), endometriomas (nine of 14), and ovarian carcinomas (three of three). MR imaging demonstrated higher diagnostic capability for dermoids (three of three). MR imaging and endovaginal US showed equal diagnostic capability for pedunculated fibroids (two of two). For all masses, observers, and observations, the overall sensitivity of endovaginal US was 76% versus 49% for MR imaging, and the overall accuracy of endovaginal US was 83% versus 70% for MR imaging. The authors suggest that endovaginal US is a better modality than MR imaging for the assessment of suspected pelvic masses.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)697-704
Number of pages8
JournalRadiology
Volume186
Issue number3
StatePublished - 1993

Fingerprint

Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Cysts
Dermoid Cyst
Leiomyoma
Endometriosis
Physical Examination
Prospective Studies
Carcinoma
Sensitivity and Specificity

Keywords

  • Dermoid
  • Magnetic resonance (MR), tissue characterization
  • Ovary, neoplasms
  • Ultrasound (US), tissue characterization
  • Uterus, cysts
  • Uterus, MR
  • Uterus, US

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Radiological and Ultrasound Technology

Cite this

Jain, K. A., Friedman, D. L., Pettinger, T. W., Alagappan, R., Jeffrey, R. B., & Sommer, F. G. (1993). Adnexal masses: Comparison of specificity of endovaginal US and pelvic MR imaging. Radiology, 186(3), 697-704.

Adnexal masses : Comparison of specificity of endovaginal US and pelvic MR imaging. / Jain, Kiran A; Friedman, D. L.; Pettinger, T. W.; Alagappan, R.; Jeffrey, R. B.; Sommer, F. G.

In: Radiology, Vol. 186, No. 3, 1993, p. 697-704.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Jain, KA, Friedman, DL, Pettinger, TW, Alagappan, R, Jeffrey, RB & Sommer, FG 1993, 'Adnexal masses: Comparison of specificity of endovaginal US and pelvic MR imaging', Radiology, vol. 186, no. 3, pp. 697-704.
Jain KA, Friedman DL, Pettinger TW, Alagappan R, Jeffrey RB, Sommer FG. Adnexal masses: Comparison of specificity of endovaginal US and pelvic MR imaging. Radiology. 1993;186(3):697-704.
Jain, Kiran A ; Friedman, D. L. ; Pettinger, T. W. ; Alagappan, R. ; Jeffrey, R. B. ; Sommer, F. G. / Adnexal masses : Comparison of specificity of endovaginal US and pelvic MR imaging. In: Radiology. 1993 ; Vol. 186, No. 3. pp. 697-704.
@article{36ba73e9f7e34223b9515d22c8b90391,
title = "Adnexal masses: Comparison of specificity of endovaginal US and pelvic MR imaging",
abstract = "In a prospective study, 32 women with suspected pelvic masses at physical examination underwent both endovaginal ultrasound (US) and magnetic resonance (MR) imaging to compare their ability in diagnosis of adnexal masses. Criteria for the diagnosis of various types of adnexal masses with MR imaging and endovaginal US were prospectively defined, and the ability of either modality to allow a specific diagnosis was assessed. For each modality, measures of sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were obtained. Results indicated higher diagnostic capability of endovaginal US for simple cysts (five of five), hemorrhagic cysts (eight of nine), endometriomas (nine of 14), and ovarian carcinomas (three of three). MR imaging demonstrated higher diagnostic capability for dermoids (three of three). MR imaging and endovaginal US showed equal diagnostic capability for pedunculated fibroids (two of two). For all masses, observers, and observations, the overall sensitivity of endovaginal US was 76{\%} versus 49{\%} for MR imaging, and the overall accuracy of endovaginal US was 83{\%} versus 70{\%} for MR imaging. The authors suggest that endovaginal US is a better modality than MR imaging for the assessment of suspected pelvic masses.",
keywords = "Dermoid, Magnetic resonance (MR), tissue characterization, Ovary, neoplasms, Ultrasound (US), tissue characterization, Uterus, cysts, Uterus, MR, Uterus, US",
author = "Jain, {Kiran A} and Friedman, {D. L.} and Pettinger, {T. W.} and R. Alagappan and Jeffrey, {R. B.} and Sommer, {F. G.}",
year = "1993",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "186",
pages = "697--704",
journal = "Radiology",
issn = "0033-8419",
publisher = "Radiological Society of North America Inc.",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Adnexal masses

T2 - Comparison of specificity of endovaginal US and pelvic MR imaging

AU - Jain, Kiran A

AU - Friedman, D. L.

AU - Pettinger, T. W.

AU - Alagappan, R.

AU - Jeffrey, R. B.

AU - Sommer, F. G.

PY - 1993

Y1 - 1993

N2 - In a prospective study, 32 women with suspected pelvic masses at physical examination underwent both endovaginal ultrasound (US) and magnetic resonance (MR) imaging to compare their ability in diagnosis of adnexal masses. Criteria for the diagnosis of various types of adnexal masses with MR imaging and endovaginal US were prospectively defined, and the ability of either modality to allow a specific diagnosis was assessed. For each modality, measures of sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were obtained. Results indicated higher diagnostic capability of endovaginal US for simple cysts (five of five), hemorrhagic cysts (eight of nine), endometriomas (nine of 14), and ovarian carcinomas (three of three). MR imaging demonstrated higher diagnostic capability for dermoids (three of three). MR imaging and endovaginal US showed equal diagnostic capability for pedunculated fibroids (two of two). For all masses, observers, and observations, the overall sensitivity of endovaginal US was 76% versus 49% for MR imaging, and the overall accuracy of endovaginal US was 83% versus 70% for MR imaging. The authors suggest that endovaginal US is a better modality than MR imaging for the assessment of suspected pelvic masses.

AB - In a prospective study, 32 women with suspected pelvic masses at physical examination underwent both endovaginal ultrasound (US) and magnetic resonance (MR) imaging to compare their ability in diagnosis of adnexal masses. Criteria for the diagnosis of various types of adnexal masses with MR imaging and endovaginal US were prospectively defined, and the ability of either modality to allow a specific diagnosis was assessed. For each modality, measures of sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were obtained. Results indicated higher diagnostic capability of endovaginal US for simple cysts (five of five), hemorrhagic cysts (eight of nine), endometriomas (nine of 14), and ovarian carcinomas (three of three). MR imaging demonstrated higher diagnostic capability for dermoids (three of three). MR imaging and endovaginal US showed equal diagnostic capability for pedunculated fibroids (two of two). For all masses, observers, and observations, the overall sensitivity of endovaginal US was 76% versus 49% for MR imaging, and the overall accuracy of endovaginal US was 83% versus 70% for MR imaging. The authors suggest that endovaginal US is a better modality than MR imaging for the assessment of suspected pelvic masses.

KW - Dermoid

KW - Magnetic resonance (MR), tissue characterization

KW - Ovary, neoplasms

KW - Ultrasound (US), tissue characterization

KW - Uterus, cysts

KW - Uterus, MR

KW - Uterus, US

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0027400111&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0027400111&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

VL - 186

SP - 697

EP - 704

JO - Radiology

JF - Radiology

SN - 0033-8419

IS - 3

ER -