OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the role of three-dimensional transvaginal sonography in assessing complex adnexal masses. METHODS: Forty-one women (mean age, 49.5 years; range, 23-75 years) with the diagnosis of complex adnexal masses on the basis of two-dimensional transvaginal sonography were reevaluated by three-dimensional transvaginal sonography. Two different sonologists evaluated the two- and three-dimensional transvaginal sonograms. Criteria indicative of malignancy included the presence of gross papillary projections, solid areas, and solid echogenicity for both techniques. Three women (7%) had bilateral masses, giving a total of 44 masses that were ultimately assessed. A definitive histologic diagnosis was obtained in every case after surgical tumor removal. RESULTS: Twenty-one tumors (47.7%) were proved malignant, and 23 (52.3%) were benign. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and accuracy for two- and three-dimensional transvaginal sonography were 90%, 61%, 68%, 87%, and 75% and 100%, 78%, 81%, 100%, and 89%, respectively. There were no statistical differences between two- and three-dimensional transvaginal sonography (McNemar test, P = .687). The agreement between both examiners was high (kappa index = 0.71). CONCLUSIONS: The use of three-dimensional transvaginal sonography does not significantly improve the two-dimensional transvaginal sonographic morphologic assessment of complex adnexal masses; however, we found it useful for reinforcing initial diagnostic impressions.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the role of three-dimensional transvaginal sonography in assessing complex adnexal masses. METHODS: Forty-one women (mean age, 49.5 years; range, 23-75 years) with the diagnosis of complex adnexal masses on the basis of two-dimensional transvaginal sonography were reevaluated by three-dimensional transvaginal sonography. Two different sonologists evaluated the two- and three-dimensional transvaginal sonograms. Criteria indicative of malignancy included the presence of gross papillary projections, solid areas, and solid echogenicity for both techniques. Three women (7%) had bilateral masses, giving a total of 44 masses that were ultimately assessed. A definitive histologic diagnosis was obtained in every case after surgical tumor removal. RESULTS: Twenty-one tumors (47.7%) were proved malignant, and 23 (52.3%) were benign. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and accuracy for two- and three-dimensional transvaginal sonography were 90%, 61%, 68%, 87%, and 75% and 100%, 78%, 81%, 100%, and 89%, respectively. There were no statistical differences between two- and three-dimensional transvaginal sonography (McNemar test, P = .687). The agreement between both examiners was high (kappa index = 0.71). CONCLUSIONS: The use of three-dimensional transvaginal sonography does not significantly improve the two-dimensional transvaginal sonographic morphologic assessment of complex adnexal masses; however, we found it useful for reinforcing initial diagnostic impressions.