OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study was to determine if three-dimensional power Doppler ultrasound improves the specificity for ovarian cancer detection as compared with two-dimensional ultrasound. METHODS: Seventy-one women with a known complex pelvic mass were referred for a preoperative ultrasound evaluation with both two-dimensional and three-dimensional gray-scale ultrasonography. The 3D studies were performed with the Kretz Voluson 530D using a mechanized transvaginal probe. Surface rendering and power Doppler imaging were performed by the same gynecologic sonologist, and reassigned to one of four echo patterns: cystic, multicystic, complex, or solid. Sonographic criteria used for diagnosing ovarian cancer were based on a system that included morphological characteristics, histological prediction, and power Doppler imaging. RESULTS: Seventy-one women underwent surgical exploration: 14 (19.7%) had ovarian cancer (2 FIGO stage I, 2 stage II, 7 stage III, and 3 metastatic colon) and 2 had uterine cancer. Two-dimensional gray-scale ultrasound identified 40 masses as suspicious for cancer, including all 14 malignancies, yielding a sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value of 100, 54, and 35%, respectively. However, evaluation with 3D power Doppler identified only 28 cases as suspicious (including all 14 cancers), resulting in a sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value of 100, 75, and 50%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Three-dimensional power Doppler imaging better defines the morphological and vascular characteristics of ovarian lesions. All malignancies were correctly identified by both 2D and 3D imaging; however, the specificity significantly improved with the addition of 3D power Doppler. This improved diagnostic accuracy may promote improved patient care by separating complex benign masses from ovarian cancer, therefore facilitating appropriate physician referral. Copyright 2001 Academic Press.
OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study was to determine if three-dimensional power Doppler ultrasound improves the specificity for ovarian cancer detection as compared with two-dimensional ultrasound. METHODS: Seventy-one women with a known complex pelvic mass were referred for a preoperative ultrasound evaluation with both two-dimensional and three-dimensional gray-scale ultrasonography. The 3D studies were performed with the Kretz Voluson 530D using a mechanized transvaginal probe. Surface rendering and power Doppler imaging were performed by the same gynecologic sonologist, and reassigned to one of four echo patterns: cystic, multicystic, complex, or solid. Sonographic criteria used for diagnosing ovarian cancer were based on a system that included morphological characteristics, histological prediction, and power Doppler imaging. RESULTS: Seventy-one women underwent surgical exploration: 14 (19.7%) had ovarian cancer (2 FIGO stage I, 2 stage II, 7 stage III, and 3 metastatic colon) and 2 had uterine cancer. Two-dimensional gray-scale ultrasound identified 40 masses as suspicious for cancer, including all 14 malignancies, yielding a sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value of 100, 54, and 35%, respectively. However, evaluation with 3D power Doppler identified only 28 cases as suspicious (including all 14 cancers), resulting in a sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value of 100, 75, and 50%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Three-dimensional power Doppler imaging better defines the morphological and vascular characteristics of ovarian lesions. All malignancies were correctly identified by both 2D and 3D imaging; however, the specificity significantly improved with the addition of 3D power Doppler. This improved diagnostic accuracy may promote improved patient care by separating complex benign masses from ovarian cancer, therefore facilitating appropriate physician referral. Copyright 2001 Academic Press.
Authors: Jennifer M Watson; Photini F Rice; Samuel L Marion; Molly A Brewer; John R Davis; Jeffrey J Rodriguez; Urs Utzinger; Patricia B Hoyer; Jennifer K Barton Journal: J Biomed Opt Date: 2012-07 Impact factor: 3.170
Authors: Hanping Wu; Eric C Abenojar; Reshani Perera; Al Christopher De Leon; Tianzhi An; Agata A Exner Journal: Ultrasound Med Biol Date: 2019-06-24 Impact factor: 2.998
Authors: Feng Su; Jennifer Lang; Ashutosh Kumar; Carey Ng; Brian Hsieh; Marc A Suchard; Srinivasa T Reddy; Robin Farias-Eisner Journal: Biomark Insights Date: 2007-10-16