Role of USG and CT scan in evaluating ovarian lesions

Mayur Khandhedia, Kalpesh Patel


Introduction: Ultrasound helps by detecting lesions, give idea about its internal structure and also give opportunity to evaluate other abdominal organs. However evaluation by CT scan can give additional information, which can modify the course of treatment and prognosis of patient.

Material & methods: Study comprise of 84 patients who were evaluated with ultrasonography (USG) and computerized tomography (CT) scan of abdomen and pelvis. Ovarian pathologies were categorized with benign, malignant and metastasis and compared with histopathological diagnosis or conservative treatment follow up.

Results: 84 patients were evaluated; CT scan and sonography are excellent noninvasive modality to differentiate ovarian masses from benign and malignant lesions and both imaging techniques seem to be comparable in differentiation of malignant from benign ovarian tumors. CT scan was more sensitive than ultrasonography, but sonography is more specific than CT scan in diagnosis of malignant lesions. Ultrasonography has high positive predictive value as compare to CT scan to diagnose malignant lesions.

Discussion: Ultrasound by virtue of non-invasiveness, lack of radiation hazard and by ability to demonstrate structural changes in organ is investigation of choice in ovarian pathology and it can easily detect solid to cystic lesions and characterize the size, shape & extent of lesion. Computerized Tomography is particularly useful to know the enhancement pattern of the lesion, density and extent and staging of malignancies.


Ovarian Lesion, USG, CT

Full Text:



. Gupta. N, Bisht. D. Retrospective and prospective study of ovarian tumors and tumor like lesions. Indian Journal of Pathol Microbiol 2007; 50(30): 525- 527.

. Prabhakar BR, Kalyani M. Ovarian tumors-prevalence in Punjab. Indian J. Pathol. Microbiol 1989; 32(4): 276-281.

. Jagadeeshwari.N, Reddy R.S., Rao K.S. Incidence of ovarian tumors. J. Obstet Gynec India 1971; 21: 727 -732.

. Young RH, Scully RE. Differential diagnosis of ovarian tumors based primarily on their pattern and cell type. Semin Diagn Pathol 2001; 18(3): 161 235.

. Aziz Z, Sana S, Saeed S, Akram M. Institution based tumor registry from Punjab: five year data based analysis. J Pak Med Assoc. 2003; 53:350353.

. Tanwani AK. Prevalence and patterns of ovarian lesions. Ann Pak Inst Med Sci. 2005; 1:211214.

. Taylor KJ, Schwartz PE. Screening for early ovarian cancer. Radiology 1994; 192(1):110.

. Horner MJ, Ries LAG, Krapcho M, et al. SEER cancer statistics review, 19752006, National Cancer Institute. SEER Website. csr/1975_2006. Based on November 2008 SEER data submission. Published May 29, 2009. Accessed December 3, 2009.

. Jeong YY, Outwater EK, Kang HK. Imaging evaluation of ovarian masses. Radiographics 2000; 20:14451470.

. Woodward PJ, Hosseinzadeh K, Saenger JS. Radiologic staging of ovarian carcinoma with pathologic correlation. Radiographics. 2004; 24: 225246.

. Iyer VR, Lee SI. MRI, CT, and PET/CT for ovarian cancer detection and adnexal lesion characterization. AJR 2010; 194:311321.

. Jingzhe Liu, YufengXub, Jichen Wang. Ultrasonography, computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging for diagnosis of ovarian carcinoma. European Journal of Radiology 62 (2007) 328334.

. Chen VW, Ruiz B, Killeen JL, Cote TR, WuXc Correa CN. Pathology and classification of ovarian tumors. Cancer 2003; 97 (Suppl 10): 2631-2642.

. Singh I, Pal GP. Human Embryology. 7th ed. New Delhi: Macmillan India Ltd, 2004.

. Sadler T.W. Langmans Medical Embryology 8th ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams and Wilkins. 2000


Copyright (c) 2017 International Journal of Biomedical and Advance Research

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.