The role of magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasound in patients with adnexal masses.

AIMS

To evaluate the accuracy of ultrasonography (US) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in characterizing adnexal masses, and to determine which patients may benefit from MRI.

METHODS

We prospectively studied 72 women (mean age 53 years, range 19 to 86 years) with clinically suspected adnexal masses. A single experienced sonographer performed transabdominal and transvaginal greyscale spectral and colour Doppler examinations. MRI was carried out on a 1.5T system using T1, T2 and fat-suppressed T1-weighted sequences before and after intravenous injection of gadolinium. The adnexal masses were categorized as benign or malignant without knowledge of clinical details, according to the imaging features which were compared with the surgical and pathological findings.

RESULTS

For characterizing lesions as malignant, the sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of MRI were 96.6%, 83.7% and 88.9%, respectively, and of US were 100%, 39.5% and 63.9%, respectively. MRI was more specific (p<0.05) than US. Both MRI and US correctly diagnosed 17 (24%) cases with benign and 28 (39%) cases with malignant masses. MRI correctly diagnosed 19 (26%) cases with benign lesion(s), which on US were thought to be malignant. The age, menopausal status and CA-125 levels in these women made benign disease likely, but US features were suggestive of malignancy (large masses and solid-cystic lesions with nodules).

CONCLUSION

MRI is more specific and accurate than US and Doppler assessment for characterizing adnexal masses. Women who clinically have a relatively low risk of malignancy but who have complex sonographic features may benefit from MRI.