Advertisement

Three-Dimensional Ultrasound in Adnexal Masses

  • Juan Luis AlcázarEmail author
  • Begoña Olartecoechea
  • María Aubá
Chapter

Abstract

Two-dimensional ultrasound is commonly used in gynecological practice, and it could be considered as the first-line imaging technique for diagnosing adnexal pathology. Three-dimensional ultrasound allows the acquisition of the so-called 3D volumes. Once the 3D volume is acquired, it can be digitally stored and transferred via DICOM to a personal computer for further assessment with dedicated software. An important ability of 3DUS is volume calculation even in irregularly shaped structures. In this chapter, the potentialities and the state of the art of the three-dimensional ultrasound will be reviewed.

Keywords

Ultrasound Three-dimensional ultrasound Ovarian neoplasm Sensitivity Specificity Diagnostic confidence 

References

  1. 1.
    Mettler L. The cystic adnexal mass: patient selection, surgical techniques and long-term follow-up. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2001;13:389–97.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Alcázar JL. Three-dimensional ultrasound in gynecology: current status and future perspectives. Curr Women’s Health Rev. 2005;1:1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bega G, Lev-Toaff AS, O’Kane P, Becker Jr E, Kurtz AB. Three-dimensional ultrasonography in gynecology: technical aspects and clinical applications. J Ultrasound Med. 2003;22:1249–69.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Alcázar JL. Three-dimensional ultrasound in gynecological practice. Rep Med Imaging. 2012;5:1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Pairleitner H, Steiner H, Hasenoehrl G, Staudach A. Three dimensional power Doppler sonography: imaging and quantifying blood flow and vascularization. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 1999;14:139–43.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bonilla-Musoles F, Raga F, Osborne NG. Three-dimensional ultrasound evaluation of ovarian masses. Gynecol Oncol. 1995;59:129–35.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hata T, Yanagihara T, Hayashi K, Yamashiro C, Ohnishi Y, Akiyama M, Manabe A, Miyazaki K. Three-dimensional ultrasonographic evaluation of ovarian tumours: a preliminary study. Hum Reprod. 1999;14:858–61.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Alcázar JL, Galán MJ, García-Manero M, Guerriero S. Three-dimensional ultrasound morphologic assessment in complex adnexal masses a preliminary experience. J Ultrasound Med. 2003;22:249–54.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Alcázar JL, García-Manero M, Galván R. Three-dimensional sonographic morphologic assessment of adnexal masses: a reproducibility study. J Ultrasound Med. 2007;26:1007–11.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Laban M, Metawee H, Elyan A, Kamal M, Kamel M, Mansour G. Three-dimensional ultrasound and three-dimensional power Doppler in the assessment of ovarian tumors. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2007;99:201–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Pascual MA, Graupera B, Hereter L, Rotili A, Rodriguez I, Alcázar JL. Intra- and interobserver variability of 2D and 3D transvaginal sonography in the diagnosis of benign versus malignant adnexal masses. J Clin Ultrasound. 2011;39:316–21.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sladkevicius P, Valentin L. Intra- and inter-observer agreement when describing adnexal masses using the International Ovarian Tumour Analysis (IOTA) terms and definitions: a study on three-dimensional (3D) ultrasound volumes. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2013;41(3):318–27. doi: 10.1002/uog.12289.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Timor-Tritsch IE, Monteagudo A, Tsymbal T. Three-dimensional ultrasound inversion rendering technique facilitates the diagnosis of hydrosalpinx. J Clin Ultrasound. 2010;38:372–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Alcázar JL, León M, Galván R, Guerriero S. Assessment of cyst content using mean gray value for discriminating endometrioma from other unilocular cysts in premenopausal women. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2010;35:228–32.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Cohen LS, Escobar PF, Scharm C, Glimco B, Fishman DA. Three-dimensional ultrasound power Doppler improves the diagnostic accuracy for ovarian cancer prediction. Gynecol Oncol. 2001;82:40–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Alcázar JL, Castillo G. Comparison of 2-dimensional and 3-dimensional power-Doppler imaging in complex adnexal masses for the prediction of ovarian cancer. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005;192:807–12.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kurjak A, Kupesic S, Anic T, Kosuta D. Three-dimensional ultrasound and power Doppler improve the diagnosis of ovarian lesions. Gynecol Oncol. 2000;76:28–32.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kurjak A, Kupesic S, Sparac V, Bekavac I. Preoperative evaluation of pelvic tumors by Doppler and three-dimensional sonography. J Ultrasound Med. 2001;20:829–40.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kupesic S, Kurjak A. Contrast-enhanced three-dimensional power Doppler sonography for differentiation of adnexal masses. Obstet Gynecol. 2000;96:452–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Chase DM, Crade M, Basu T, Saffari B, Berman ML. Preoperative diagnosis of ovarian malignancy: preliminary results of the use of 3-dimensional vascular ultrasound. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2009;19:354–60.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sladkevicius P, Jokubkiene L, Valentin L. Contribution of morphological assessment of the vessel tree by three-dimensional ultrasound to a correct diagnosis of malignancy in ovarian masses. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2007;30:874–82.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Alcázar JL, Cabrera C, Galván R, Guerriero S. Three-dimensional power Doppler vascular network assessment of adnexal masses: intraobserver and interobserver agreement analysis. J Ultrasound Med. 2008;27:997–1001.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Dai SY, Hata K, Inubashiri E, Kanenishi K, Shiota A, Ohno M, Yamamoto Y, Nishiyama Y, Ohkawa M, Hata T. Does three-dimensional power Doppler ultrasound improve the diagnostic accuracy for the prediction of adnexal malignancy? J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2008;34:364–70.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Mansour GM, El-Lamie IK, El-Sayed HM, Ibrahim AM, Laban M, Abou-Louz SK, Abd Allah MY, El-Mahallawi MN, El-Lamie KI, Gad-Allah M. Adnexal mass vascularity assessed by 3-dimensional power Doppler: does it add to the risk of malignancy index in prediction of ovarian malignancy?: four hundred-case study. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2009;19:867–72.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Jacobs I, Oram D, Fairbanks J, Turner J, Frost C, Grudzinskas JG. A risk of malignancy index incorporating CA 125, ultrasound and menopausal status for the accurate preoperative diagnosis of ovarian cancer. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1990;97:922–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Alcázar JL, Merce LT, Garcia MM. Three-dimensional power Doppler vascular sampling: a new method for predicting ovarian cancer in vascularized complex adnexal masses. J Ultrasound Med. 2005;24:689–96.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Testa AC, Ajossa S, Ferrandina G, Fruscella E, Ludovisi M, Malaggese M, Scambia G, Melis GB, Guerriero S. Does quantitative analysis of three-dimensional power Doppler angiography have a role in the diagnosis of malignant pelvic solid tumors? A preliminary study. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2005;26:67–72.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Geomini PM, Kluivers KB, Moret E, Bremer GL, Kruitwagen RF, Mol BW. Evaluation of adnexal masses with three-dimensional ultrasonography. Obstet Gynecol. 2006;108:1167–75.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Jokubkiene L, Sladkevicius P, Valentin L. Does three-dimensional power Doppler ultrasound help in discrimination between benign and malignant ovarian masses? Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2007;29:215–25.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Kudla MJ, Timor-Tritsch IE, Hope JM, Monteagudo A, Popiolek D, Monda S, Lee CJ, Arslan AA. Spherical tissue sampling in 3-dimensional power Doppler angiography: a new approach for evaluation of ovarian tumors. J Ultrasound Med. 2008;27:425–33.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Ohel I, Sheiner E, Aricha-Tamir B, Piura B, Meirovitz M, Silberstein T, Hershkovitz R. Three-dimensional power Doppler ultrasound in ovarian cancer and its correlation with histology. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2010;281:919–25.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Alcázar JL, Prka M. Evaluation of two different methods for vascular sampling by three-dimensional power Doppler angiography in solid and cystic-solid adnexal masses. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2009;33:349–54.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Alcázar JL, Rodriguez D, Royo P, Galván R, Ajossa S, Guerriero S. Intraobserver and interobserver reproducibility of 3-dimensional power Doppler vascular indices in assessment of solid and cystic-solid adnexal masses. J Ultrasound Med. 2008;27:1–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Kudla M, Alcázar JL. Does the size of three-dimensional power Doppler spherical sampling affect the interobserver reproducibility of measurements of vascular indices in adnexal masses? Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2009;34:732–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Alcázar JL, Rodriguez D. Three-dimensional power Doppler vascular sonographic sampling for predicting ovarian cancer in cystic-solid and solid vascularized masses. J Ultrasound Med. 2009;28:275–81.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Kudla MJ, Alcázar JL. Does sphere volume affect the performance of three-dimensional power Doppler virtual vascular sampling for predicting malignancy in vascularized solid or cystic-solid adnexal masses? Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2010;35:602–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Guerriero S, Ajossa S, Piras S, Gerada M, Floris S, Garau N, Minerba L, Paoletti AM, Melis GB. Three-dimensional quantification of tumor vascularity as a tertiary test after B-mode and power Doppler evaluation for detection of ovarian cancer. J Ultrasound Med. 2007;26:1271–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Alcázar JL. Three-dimensional power Doppler derived vascular indices: what are we measuring and how are we doing it? Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2008;32:485–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Raine-Fenning NJ, Nordin NM, Ramnarine KV, Campbell BK, Clewes JS, Perkins A, Johnson IR. Evaluation of the effect of machine settings on quantitative three-dimensional power Doppler angiography: an in-vitro flow phantom experiment. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2008;32:551–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Raine-Fenning NJ, Nordin NM, Ramnarine KV, Campbell BK, Clewes JS, Perkins A, Johnson IR. Determining the relationship between three-dimensional power Doppler data and true blood flow characteristics: an in-vitro flow phantom experiment. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2008;32:540–50.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Martins WP, Raine-Fenning NJ, Ferriani RA, Nastri CO. Quantitative three-dimensional power Doppler angiography: a flow-free phantom experiment to evaluate the relationship between color gain, depth and signal artifact. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2010;35:361–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Welsh A. The questionable value of VOCAL indices of perfusion. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2010;36:126–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Martins WP. Three-dimensional power Doppler: validity and reliability. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2010;36:530–3.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Alcázar JL, Iturra A, Sedda F, Aubá M, Ajossa S, Guerriero S, Jurado M. Three-dimensional volume off-line analysis as compared to real-time ultrasound for assessing adnexal masses. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2012;161:92–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Juan Luis Alcázar
    • 1
    Email author
  • Begoña Olartecoechea
    • 1
  • María Aubá
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyClínica Universidad de Navarra, University of NavarraPamplonaSpain

Personalised recommendations