Histologic, surgical, and imaging correlations of adnexal masses

Ultrasound and Histopathologic Correlation of Ovarian Cystadenofibromas: Diagnostic Value of the "Shadow Sign"

OBJECTIVES

Cystadenofibromas (CAFs) are rare benign ovarian tumors without a widely accepted ultrasound (US) pattern. They are usually described by as thin-walled, unilocular or multilocular, and at times septated cysts with scant blood flow and no solid components. We describe a unique US feature, the "shadow sign," seen in prospectively diagnosed benign CAFs. We also provide the histopathologic basis for this typical US appearance.

METHODS

Ultrasound (US) examinations were performed in our obstetric and gynecologic US unit. Pathologic examinations were performed by a dedicated gynecologic pathology team. The US and pathology department's database was searched for the diagnosis of a CAF between 2010 and 2017.

RESULTS

We identified 20 patients who underwent transvaginal US examinations with a sole US diagnosis of a CAF, and the tumors were surgically removed. The common US feature across the 20 cases was the presence of hyperechoic avascular shadowing nodules. The correlating histologic features were unilocular or multilocular cysts with a smooth internal wall surface lined by a simple epithelium and occasional robust polypoid fibrous stroma.

CONCLUSIONS

This US marker helps in differentiating CAFs from borderline ovarian tumors, which do not show this US feature. We hope that recognizing the suggested shadow sign as an additional descriptor of CAFs will lead to minimizing their unnecessary removal and eliminating additional and unnecessary imaging by computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging.

Peri- and post-menopausal incidental adnexal masses and the risk of sporadic ovarian malignancy: new insights and clinical management

Adnexal masses are common among peri- and post-menopausal women. Although ovarian cancer is a significant cause of mortality in menopausal women, large population-based studies demonstrate that the majority of adnexal masses are benign. Despite this, the appearance of an adnexal mass is a concern for the patient and an insight exercise for physicians. In most cases, an adnexal enlargement is an incidental finding, generally corresponding to a benign cyst and easily diagnosed by conventional ultrasound. Exceptionally an ovarian tumour may be malignant and should be treated as early as possible. When conventional ultrasound renders complex morphology other diagnostic tools must be used such as: colour Doppler and functional tumour vessel properties, serum CA 125 levels, nuclear magnetic resonance imaging and in some cases laparoscopy. Several new tumour markers are being studied for clinical application, although there are presently no clear recommendations. Adnexal masses with benign morphological and functional properties must be periodically monitored as an alternative to surgery since malignant transformation is exceptional.

Patterns of misinterpretation of adnexal masses on CT and MR in an academic radiology department

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to assess potential quality assurance (QA) issues in the diagnosis and characterization of adnexal masses on pelvic computed tomographic (CT) and magnetic resonance (MR) imaging studies.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Images from 128 women who had oophorectomies during a 16-month period with CT and/or MR studies within 5 years of surgery (145 CT scans from 103 women and 49 MR studies from 42 women, with 17 having both MR and CT studies) were reviewed by three radiologists who assigned QA scores of 0 (no QA issue), 1 (minor issue with minimal impact on clinical care), or 2 (major issue with potential impact on clinical care). The difficulty of diagnosis was assigned a score of 0 (very difficult diagnosis to make), 1 (difficult but possible to make the diagnosis), or 2 (diagnosis should be made). The incidence of adnexal QA issues was calculated using total CT and MR pelvic examinations performed on women during the interval.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine QA issues were identified in 28 women in 17 of 145 CT studies (11.7%) and 12 of 49 MR examinations (24.5%) in women having adnexal surgery (17 of 11,194 [0.15%] of female pelvic CT studies and 12 of 603 [2.0%] of female pelvic MR studies performed in the time interval). Issues included missed lesions, lesions misidentified as leiomyomas, fat described in the lesion but not seen histologically, postmenopausal status of patient not considered, ultrasound correlation not recommended, and confusion of right and left sides.

CONCLUSION

Errors in CT and MR studies regarding the diagnosis and characterization of adnexal masses in a highly enriched population of women undergoing adnexal surgery are common. Knowledge of the types of QA issues found in CT and MR studies of adnexal masses should aid in decreasing future errors.

Assessment of factors that affect the quality of performance and interpretation of sonography of adnexal masses

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to assess factors that affect the quality of performance and interpretation of sonography of adnexal masses.

METHODS

Two gynecologic sonographers performed blinded reviews of up to 3 sonograms within 5 years before surgery in 325 consecutive women who underwent oophorectomy (610 sonograms). Three 5-point quality scores were assigned (with 5 being the best score) on the basis of the technical quality of the images, accurate description of findings, and summary impression in the report. The location of the examination (on-site, remote, or emergency department), type of fellowship, practice experience (<5, 5-10, or >10 years), and specialty (women's imaging, abdominal imaging, or other) of the radiologists were recorded. Analysis of variance was used to assess the impact of these multiple factors on quality.

RESULTS

No significant differences were found among 31 radiologists on the basis of the type of training, years in practice, or number of examinations read. Average scores among radiologists for technical quality, findings, and impressions were 4.96, 4.88, and 4.83, respectively. Radiologists who specialized in women's imaging performed best in the quality of their impressions (4.86 versus 4.79; P = .029). There were no significant differences in scores with respect to the examination location.

CONCLUSIONS

Within this sample of radiologists, the technical quality of the examinations was not affected by the type of training or subspecialty practice. Reports of adnexal mass findings were accurately described by all radiologists, although specialization in women's imaging improved the ability to provide an accurate impression.