Multiparametric ultrasound in the diagnosis of ovarian focal lesions

Objective Development of an ultrasound diagnostic matrix for predicting the severity of proliferative changes in the ovarian focal lesion.

Material and Methods The research was conducted on the basis of the Clinical Oncology Center, Regional Clinical Hospital no. 2. Echography (B-mode), color Doppler mapping, energy Doppler mapping (pulsation index, resistance index) on GE Voluson E8 and Aloka SSD 3500 devices were used as research methods. Retrospectively, 81 patients of reproductive age from 18 to 45 years were examined. Depending on the histological structure of ovarian lesion, the results of surgical treatment, dynamic observation and the outcome of the disease, were divided into 4 clinical groups: I (n = 12; 14,8%) – controls with no changes in the structure of the ovaries; II (n = 20; 24,7%) – patients with retention ovarian lesions; III (n = 20; 24,7%) – with benign tumors; IV (n = 29; 35,8%) – with malignant tumors.

Results A large number of diagnostic parameters does not always allow to formulate an instrumental diagnosis correctly because they have different diagnostic significance. That is why we made an attempt to create a diagnostic matrix. For each of the 18 parameters, three answers were offered. When analyzing the results of the study, there was an increase in the number of pathological parameters from II to IV clinical groups. Thus, in group III, the combination of 2 pathological signs was found in 65% of cases, and 3 signs – in 25% of the examined women. In group IV, the combination of 2 signs was determined in 82% of the subjects, and 3 signs in 65%.

Conclusion Thus, we found out that in-depth ultrasound examination (color Doppler imaging, pulsed Doppler) allowed to identify the severity of the proliferative changes and to give the prognosis of the disease.

1. Stewart BW, Wild CP. World Cancer Report 2014. International Agency for Research on Cancer; 2014. Accessed January 27, 2021. https://publications.iarc.fr/Non-Series-Publications/World-Cancer-Reports/World-Cancer-Report-2014

2. Clinical Guidelines on Diagnosis and Treatment of Benign Ovarian Neoplasms from the Perspective of Cancer Preventionin. The Russian Federation Ministry of Health; 2018. (In Russ.).

3. Bulanov MN. Ultrasound Gynecology. Vol. 2. 3rd ed. Vidar; 2014. (In Russ.).

4. Zykin BI. Diagnosis of Tumors of the Internal Reproductive Organs in Women with an Ultrasound Scan. Dissertation. M.; 1982. (In Russ.).

5. Fleming GF, Ronnett BM, Seidman J, Zaino RJ. Epithelial ovarian cancer. In: Richard R, Barakat R, Markman M, Randall ME, eds. Principles and Practice of Gynecologic Oncology. Wolters Kluver Health, Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2009:763– 837.

6. Valentin L, Callen PW. Ultrasound evolution of the adnexa (ovary and fallopian tubes). In: Callen PW, ed. Ultrasonography in Obstetrics and Gynecology. 5th ed. Elsevier; 2008:968–985.

7. Bokhman YaV. Guide to Gynecologic Oncology. Foliant; 2002. (In Russ.)

8. Ozerskaya IA. Echography in Gynecology. 2nd ed. Vidar-M; 2013. (In Russ.).

9. Trufanov GE, Panov VO. Radiation Diagnostics in Gynecology. A Guide for Physicians. ELBY-SPb; 2008. (In Russ.).

10. Shchetinin VV, Zykin BI, Pulik AV. Radiation Diagnostics of Ovarian Tumors and Tumor-like Diseases. Realnoye vremya; 2005. (In Russ.).

11. Khachkuruzov SG. Ultrasound in Gynecology. Symptomatology. Diagnostic Difficulties and Errors. ELBY-SPb; 2018. (In Russ.).

12. Nechayeva ID, Bokhman YaV. Ovarian and Fallopian Tube Cancer. Guide to Gynecologic Oncology. Meditsina; 1989. (In Russ.).

13. Nikoghosyan SO, Zagashtokov AZ, Levchenko NE, Tkhakokhov MM. Malignant ovarian tumor diagnostics difficulties. Opukholi zhenskoy reproduktivnoy systemy = Tumors of Female Reproductive System. 2018;14(2):82–89. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.17650/1994-4098-2018-14-2-82-89

14. Jacobs ID, 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(10):922–929. PMID: 2223684. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0528.1990.tb02448.x

15. Timmerman D, Ameye L, Fischerova D, et al. Simple ultrasound rules to distinguish between benign and malignant adnexal masses before surgery: prospective validation by IOTA group. BMJ. 2010;341(1):c6839. PMID: 21156740. PMCID: PMC3001703. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.c6839

16. Moore RG, Jabre-Raughley M, Brown AK, et al. Comparison of a novel multiple marker assay vs the Risk of Malignancy Index for the prediction of epithelial ovarian cancer in patients with a pelvic mass. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2010;203(3):228. e1–6. PMID: 20471625. PMCID: PMC3594101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2010.03.043

17. Moore RG, Brown AK, Craig Miller M, et al. Utility of a novel serum tumor biomarker HE4 in patients with endometrioid adenocarcinoma of the uterus. Gynecol Oncol. 2008;110(2):196– 201. PMID: 18495222. PMCID: PMC3594093. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2008.04.002

18. Meys EMJ, Kaijser J, Kruitwagen RF, et al. Subjective assessment versus ultrasound models to diagnose ovarian cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Cancer. 2016;58:17–29. PMID: 26922169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2016.01.007

19. Dyachenko YuYu. Multiparametric Ultrasound Examination of the Fetus and Extraembryonic Structures to Predict the Course and Outcome of Pregnancy. Dissertation. Russian Medical Academy of Continuing Professional Education; 2020. (In Russ.).