Comparison of Ultrasound and MRI Findings in the Evaluation of Pelvic masses/lesions with Histopathological Correlation in Female Patients
Pages : 44-54, doi: https://doi.org/10.54618/IJMAHS.2022225Download PDF
Introduction: The first investigation in the evaluation of various abdominopelvic pathologies is usually ultrasound (USG) owing to its wide availability, acceptance, lack of radiation, reproducibility, and real-time and vascular assessment. Whereas, Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is useful for the assessment of indeterminate-inconclusive lesions and characterizing tissue.
Aim: Describe ultrasound and MRI features of pelvic mass/lesion and evaluation of the diagnostic accuracy of ultrasound and MRI in the diagnosis of benign and malignant pelvic masses in women.
Design: Cross-sectional study
Material and Methods: The study comprised patients referred to the Department of Radio-Diagnosis, with any complaints of pelvic disease over 20 months. The patient underwent USG pelvis and upon detection of any pelvic lesion, patients were subjected to MRI pelvis in the 1.5T MRI machine. The diagnostic effectiveness of each imaging modality was compared using the final histopathology report.
Results: Data from 100 patients who underwent USG and MRI pelvis were included, out of which 84 underwent histopathological evaluation. The sensitivity and specificity of USG & MRI in the diagnosis of benign adnexal lesions are 90.91%, 92.31% respectively, 100.00 %, and 100.00 % respectively. The sensitivity and Specificity, of USG in diagnosing malignant adnexal lesions are 90.91 %, and 84.62 % respectively. And that of MRI in diagnosing malignant adnexal lesions is 100%, 92.86 %.
Conclusion: In comparison to ultrasound, MRI offers superior sensitivity and specificity in the identification of a variety of pelvic lesions. It is quite reliable for locating a mass’s origin, characterizing the tissue, staging, and preoperative planning.
Keywords: MRI Pelvis, Ultrasonography, Leiomyoma, Cystadenoma