Role of Ultrasound Imaging in the Differential Diagnosis of Benign and Malignant Ovarian Cancer

Authors

  • Munojat Ismailova Radiology Department, Tashkent Medical Academy, Farabi street2, 100109, Tashkent, Uzbekistan Author
  • Abdurashid Nigmatjonov Radiology Department, Tashkent Medical Academy, Farabi street2, 100109, Tashkent, Uzbekistan Author
  • Zilola Usmanova Radiology Department, Tashkent Medical Academy, Farabi street2, 100109, Tashkent, Uzbekistan Author

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.61841/nm5bgv33

Keywords:

breast, ultrasound, cancer, lymphadenopathy, ovarian

Abstract

The problem of diagnosing and treating tumors and tumor-like formations of the ovaries is complex and extremely urgent not only in connection with the increase in the frequency of the disease but also the severity of the disorders of the reproductive and other body systems caused by them. The identification of a unilocular solid cyst had a positive predictive value for malignancy of 37.1%, while the identification of a multilocular solid cyst had a positive predictive value for malignancy of 43.0% from IOTA framework. Mucinous cystadenocarcinoma was commonly unilateral and involve the presence of irregular thick septa or solid papillary projections that are usually detected within cysts. Therefore, in order to create an easy and simple classification facilitating the differentiation of benign and malignant masses, familiarity with the pattern recognition approach to ultrasound is required.

 

 

 

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

1. Sung I Jung. Ultrasonography of ovarian masses using a pattern recognition approach Ultrasonography 2015; 34:173-182, DOI: 10.14366/usg.15003

2. Valentin L. Prospective cross-validation of Doppler ultrasound examination and gray-scale ultrasound imaging for discrimination of benign and malignant pelvic masses. Ultrasound ObstetGynecol1999; 14:273-283, DOI: 10.1046/j.1469-0705.1999.14040273.x

3. Brown DL, Dudiak KM, Laing FC. Adnexal masses: US characterization and reporting. Radiology 2010;254:342-354, DOI: org/10.1148/radiol.09090552

4. Geomini P, Kruitwagen R, Bremer GL, Cnossen J, Mol BW. The accuracy of risk scores in predicting ovarian malignancy: a systematic review. ObstetGynecol2009; 113:384-394, DOI: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e318195ad17.

5. Valentin L. Use of morphology to characterize and manage common adnexal masses. Best Pract Res Clin ObstetGynaecol2004;18:71-89, DOI: 10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2003.10.002.

6. Van Calster B, Timmerman D, Bourne T, Testa AC, Van Holsbeke C, Domali E, et al. Discrimination between benign and malignant adnexal masses by specialist ultrasound examination versus serum CA-125. J Natl Cancer Inst 2007;99:1706-1714, DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djm199.

7. Testa AC. Malignant ovarian neoplasms: The sonographic voyage of discovery. UltrasoundObstetGynecol2008;31:611-614, DOI: org/10.1002/uog.5379

8. Timmerman D, Valentin L, Bourne TH, Collins WP, Verrelst H, Vergote I, et al. Terms, definitions and measurements to describe the sonographic features of adnexal tumors: a consensus opinion from the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis (IOTA) Group. Ultrasound ObstetGynecol2000;16:500-505, DOI: 10.1046/j.1469-0705.2000.00287.x

Published

31.10.2020

How to Cite

Ismailova, M., Nigmatjonov, A., & Usmanova, Z. (2020). Role of Ultrasound Imaging in the Differential Diagnosis of Benign and Malignant Ovarian Cancer. International Journal of Psychosocial Rehabilitation, 24(8), 4926-4930. https://doi.org/10.61841/nm5bgv33