Correlation Between Preoperative Clinical Diagnosis, Imaging and Histopathology of Adnexal Masses: A Retrospective Study

  • Yadav GarimaEmail author
  • Singh Pratibha
  • Kathuria Priyanka
  • Gothwal Meenakshi
Original Article



The adnexal masses are a common gynecological problem referring to physiological or pathological tumors of the ovaries or fallopian tubes and can affect all age groups. The clinical diagnosis of these adnexal masses is based upon the combination of the patient’s age, presenting symptoms and the results of the imaging studies. The clinical examination of adnexal masses poorly correlates with the origin of the mass and also with the final histopathology.

Materials and Methods

The study was conducted in the department of Obstetrics and Gynecology of the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Jodhpur, India over a period of 6 months. Forty-eight patients with clinically suspected adnexal masses were included in the study. The clinical diagnosis was correlated with the imaging diagnosis and histopathology.


Clinical examination was found to have poor sensitivity and specificity in diagnosing the origin of the pelvic mass, but clinical signs of malignancy like size > 5 cm, consistency (solid/heterogeneous), irregular surface, the presence of ascites, bilateral lesions, mobility (restricted/free) and nodularity in the pouch of Douglas increased the sensitivity of clinical examination to predict malignant lesions. Ultrasound examination was found to be helpful in differentiating adnexal masses of uterine or ovarian origin but was found to have a poor sensitivity in differentiating benign from malignant masses.


Clinical examination of adnexal masses must be done in detail with special attention toward the clinical signs of malignant lesions because imaging studies are only helpful in diagnosing frankly malignant lesions but fail to do so when the adnexal masses are benign or are of borderline nature. Benign masses on imaging can be misdiagnosed as malignant, and the patients can be subjected to unnecessary investigations and radical surgeries.


Clinical examination Adnexal masses Malignant ovarian lesions Risk of malignancy index 


Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declared that they have no conflict of interest.


  1. 1.
    Ples L, Sima RM, Burnei A, Albu DF, Bujor MA, Conci S, Teodorescu V, Edu A. The experience of our clinic in laparoscopy for adnexal masses and the correlation between ultrasound findings and pathological results. Rom J Morphol Embryol. 2016;57(4):1337–41.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Adams Hillard PJ. Benign diseases of the female reproductive tract. In: Berek JS, editor. Berek & Novak’s Gynecology. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2012. p. 676–81.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hernandez E, Miyazawa K. The pelvic mass. Patients’ ages and pathologic findings. J Reprod Med. 1988;33:361–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Tingulstad S, Hagen B, Skjeldestad FE, Onsrud M, Kiserud T, Halvorsen T, et al. Evaluation of a risk of malignancy index based on serum CA-125, ultrasound findings and menopausal status in the pre-operative diagnosis of pelvic masses. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1996;103:826–31.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cannistra SA. Cancer of the ovary. N Engl J Med. 2004;351:2519–29.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ueland FR, Depriest PD, Desimone CP, Pavlik EJ, Lele SM, Kryscio RJ, et al. The accuracy of examination under anesthesia and transvaginal sonography in evaluating ovarian size. Gynecol Oncol. 2005;99:400–3.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Padilla LA, Radosevich DM, Milad MP. Accuracy of the pelvic examination in detecting adnexal masses. Obstet Gynecol. 2000;96:593–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Canis M, Botchorishvili R, Manhes H, Wattiez A, Mage G, Pouly JL, et al. Management of adnexal masses: role and risk of laparoscopy. Semin Surg Oncol. 2000;19:28–35.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Asif N, Sattar A, Dawood MM, Rafi T, Aamir M, Anwar M. Pre-operative evaluation of ovarian mass: risk of malignancy index. J Coll Physicians Surg Pak. 2004;14(3):128–31.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sohaib SA, Mills TD, Sahdev A, Webb JAW, VanTrappen PO, Jacobs IJ, Reznek RH. The role of magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasound in patients with adnexal masses. Clin Radiol. 2005;60(3):334–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Association of Gynecologic Oncologists of India 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yadav Garima
    • 1
    Email author
  • Singh Pratibha
    • 1
  • Kathuria Priyanka
    • 1
  • Gothwal Meenakshi
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Obstetrics and GynaecologyAll India Institute of Medical SciencesJodhpurIndia

Personalised recommendations