Advertisement

Abdominal Radiology

, Volume 43, Issue 7, pp 1764–1771 | Cite as

Imaging characterization of adnexal lesions: Do CT findings correlate with US?

  • Akshay D. Baheti
  • Cory E. Lewis
  • Daniel S. Hippe
  • Ryan B. O’Malley
  • Carolyn L. Wang
Article
  • 154 Downloads

Abstract

Objective

To compare contrast-enhanced CT and US agreement in characterizing adnexal lesions in late post-menopausal women.

Materials and methods

This was a HIPAA-compliant IRB-approved retrospective review of the contrast-enhanced CTs of 130 late post-menopausal women (> 55 years). The lesions were classified as simple cystic, minimally complex cystic, complex cystic, solid-cystic, or solid based on CT and US morphology. Findings were analyzed to evaluate agreement between CT and US on adnexal lesion characterization.

Results

One forty-one adnexal lesions were assessed by both contrast-enhanced CT and US. Overall, there was good agreement between CT and US, which agreed on the lesion morphology in 114 (81%) cases with an unweighted kappa value of 0.68 (95% CI 0.56–0.78). By CT, 83 (59%) were classified as simple cystic, of which 73/83 (88%) were confirmed as simple cystic by US. Of the remaining 10 CT simple cysts, 9 were reclassified by US as minimally complex cystic and one as complex cystic. Eight of these lesions were benign based on pathology or follow-up imaging, while two lesions remained indeterminate. By CT, 27 lesions (19%) were classified as minimally complex, while US reclassified 13 (48%) of the lesions (eight to simple cystic and five as complex or solid-cystic). Among the 31 remaining lesions, there were 4 (13%) discordances between CT and US.

Conclusion

There is good agreement between CT and US in characterizing adnexal lesion morphology, particularly simple cysts. However, there was significant discordance seen with characterization of minimally complex cysts, indicating that these lesions need US follow-up.

Keywords

Adnexal lesion Ovarian lesion Ovarian cyst CT US 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Disclosures

Daniel S Hippe wishes to disclose grants from GE Healthcare and Philips Healthcare, outside of the submitted work. The rest of the authors have nothing to disclose.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

References

  1. 1.
    Castillo G, Alcazar JL, Jurado M (2004) Natural history of sonographically detected simple unilocular adnexal cysts in asymptomatic postmenopausal women. Gynecol Oncol 92:965–969CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Greenlee RT, Kessel B, Williams CR, et al. (2010) Prevalence, incidence, and natural history of simple ovarian cysts among women > 55 years old in a large cancer screening trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol 202(373):e1–e9Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Modesitt SC, Pavlik EJ, Ueland FR, et al. (2003) Risk of malignancy in unilocular ovarian cystic tumors less than 10 centimeters in diameter. Obstet Gynecol 102:594–599PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Slanetz PJ, Hahn PF, Hall DA, Mueller PR (1997) The frequency and significance of adnexal lesions incidentally revealed by CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol 168:647–650CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Levine D, Brown DL, Andreotti RF, et al. (2010) Management of asymptomatic ovarian and other adnexal cysts imaged at US: society of Radiologists in Ultrasound Consensus Conference Statement. Radiology 256:943–954CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Patel MD, Ascher SM, Paspulati RM, et al. (2013) Managing incidental findings on abdominal and pelvic CT and MRI, part 1: white paper of the ACR Incidental Findings Committee II on adnexal findings. J Am Coll Radiol 10:675–681CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Wasnik AP, Menias CO, Platt JF, et al. (2013) Multimodality imaging of ovarian cystic lesions: review with an imaging based algorithmic approach. World J Radiol 28:113–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kim KA, Park CM, Lee JH, et al. (2004) Benign ovarian tumors with solid and cystic components that mimic malignancy. Am J Roentgenol 182:1259–1265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Iyer VR, Lee SI (2010) MRI, CT, and PET/CT for ovarian cancer detection and adnexal lesion characterization. Am J Roentgenol 194:311–321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Curvo-Semedo L, Lambregts DM, Maas M, et al. (2011) Rectal cancer: assessment of complete response to preoperative combined radiation therapy with chemotherapy–conventional MR volumetry versus diffusion-weighted MR imaging. Radiology 260:734–743CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Van Calster B, Van Hoorde K, Froyman W, et al. (2015) Practical guidance for applying the ADNEX model from the IOTA group to discriminate between different subtypes of adnexal tumors. Facts Views Vis Obgyn 7:32–41PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Timmerman D, Ameye L, Fischerova D, et al. (2010) Simple ultrasound rules to distinguish between benign and malignant adnexal masses before surgery: prospective validation by IOTA group. BMJ 341:c6839CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Timmerman D, Testa AC, Bourne T, et al. (2008) Simple ultrasound-based rules for the diagnosis of ovarian cancer. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 31:681–690CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bar-Hava I, Orvieto R, Vardimon D, et al. (1997) Ovarian cysts and cyclic hormone replacement therapy: is there an association? Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 76:563–566CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Akshay D. Baheti
    • 1
    • 2
  • Cory E. Lewis
    • 1
  • Daniel S. Hippe
    • 1
  • Ryan B. O’Malley
    • 1
  • Carolyn L. Wang
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of RadiologyUniversity of Washington Medical CenterSeattleUSA
  2. 2.Department of RadiologyTata Memorial CenterParelIndia

Personalised recommendations