MRI IMAGING IN EVALUATION OF FEMALE PELVIC DISEASES WITH ULTRASOUND OR CYTO HISTOPATHOLOGICAL CORRELATION
Main Article Content
Keywords
.............
Abstract
Female pelvic masses pose a diagnostic challenge because of their diverse etiologies and overlapping clinical manifestations. Although ultrasonography (USG) is widely used as the initial imaging tool, its diagnostic performance decreases in complex or deeply located lesions. Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) provides superior soft-tissue contrast and multiplanar capability, enabling more reliable lesion characterization.
Aim: To compare the diagnostic performance of MRI and USG in identifying the origin of pelvic lesions, characterizing adnexal masses, and staging gynecologic malignancies, using cyto-histopathology as the reference standard.
Methods: Fifty women with clinically suspected pelvic masses underwent USG followed by MRI. Imaging findings were correlated with surgical or histopathological outcomes to determine diagnostic accuracy.
Results: MRI demonstrated significantly higher diagnostic accuracy than USG across all evaluated parameters. MRI identified the organ of origin correctly in 96% of cases (USG: 74%), differentiated benign from malignant masses with 92% accuracy (USG: 68%), and staged malignancies with 93% accuracy (USG: 52%). MRI also exhibited greater sensitivity in detecting solid components, septations, lymphadenopathy, ascites, and peritoneal deposits.
Conclusion: MRI provides enhanced diagnostic precision in the evaluation of female pelvic pathology and should be the preferred modality when USG findings are inconclusive or when malignancy is suspected.
References
2. Charles B Higgns, HedvigHricak, Clyde A. Helms. Magnetic ResonanceImaging of the body III edition p.3-24.
3. Hricak H, Chen M, Coakley F, et al. Complex adnexal masses: Detection and characterization with MR imaging–multivariate analysis.Radiology.2000;214:39-46.
4. Buy JN. Pelvic endometriosis. J Radiol, 2001 Dec; 82 (12 Pt 2): 1867-79.
5. Sohaib SA, Sahdev A, Van Trappen P, et al. Characterization of adnexal mass lesions on MR imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2003;180:1297-1304.
6. Szklaruk J, Tamm EP, Choi H, Varavithya V. MR imaging of common and uncommon large pelvic masses. Radiographics2003;23:403‐24.
7. Sohaib SA, Mills TD, SahdevA, et al. The role of magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasound in patients with adnexal masses. Clin Radiol 2005; 60:340-348.
8. ACR Practice Guideline for the Performance of Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) of the Soft Tissue Components of the Pelvis. Reston, VA: American College of Radiology;Amended 2006.
9. Bazot M, Darai E, Nassar-Slaba J, Lafont C, Thomassin-Naggara I. Value of magnetic resonance imaging for the diagnosis of ovarian tumors: a review. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2008; 32:712-723.
10. Namimoto T, Awai K, Nakaura T, Yanaga Y, Hirai T, Yamashita Y. Role of diffusion-weighted imaging in the diagnosis of gynaecological diseases. Eur Radiol2009; 19:745-760.
11. Brian C. Allen, KeyanooshHosseinzadeh, Shadi A Qasem. Practical approach to MRI of female pelvic masses. AJR 2014; 202: 1366-1375.
12. Gangadhar K1, Mahajan A2, Sable N2, Bhargava P3. Magnetic Resonance Imaging of Pelvic Masses: A Compartmental Approach. Epub2016 ;38(3):213-230.
13. Pratiksha Yadav. Magnetic resonance imaging in the evaluation of female pelvis. Medical journal of Dr. D.Y. Patil Vidyapeeth2016;9:627-634.
Article Sidebar
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
All articles published in JPTCP are licensed under Copyright Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Dr. Gaurav
Junior Resident, Department of Radiodiagnosis, Rajshree Medical Research Institute, Bareilly. [email protected]
Dr. Rajneesh Madhok
Professor and Head of Department, Department of Radiodiagnosis Rajshree Medical Research Institute, Bareilly
Dr. Sukriti Verma
Assistant professor, Department of Radiodiagnosis Rajshree Medical Research Institute, Bareilly
