| Literature DB >> 27867419 |
Yan Liu1, Hui Zhang2, Xiaoqian Li3, Guiqin Qi4.
Abstract
Purpose. The current study aimed to evaluate whether combined application of ultrasound and CT had increased Diagnostic Value in Female Patients with Pelvic Masses over either method alone. Patients and Methods. 240 female patients with pelvic masses were detected preoperatively with ultrasound and CT prior to surgery. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of ultrasound, CT, and combined ultrasound/CT application were evaluated, respectively. Results. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of ultrasound were 52.8%, 86.7%, and 68.75%, respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of CT were 80.3%, 90.3%, and 85%, respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of combined application of ultrasound and CT were 89%, 94.7%, and 91.7%. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of combined application of ultrasound and CT were higher than those of either ultrasound or CT. Conclusions. The combined application of ultrasound and CT had higher Diagnostic Value in Female Patients with Pelvic Masses than either method alone.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27867419 PMCID: PMC5102714 DOI: 10.1155/2016/6146901
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Comput Math Methods Med ISSN: 1748-670X Impact factor: 2.238
The diagnosis of masses.
| Uterine fibroids | Endometrial cancer | Cervical cancer | Uterine sarcoma | Benign ovarian tumor | Ovarian cancer | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ultrasound | 109 | 23 | 41 | 4 | 49 | 14 |
| CT | 87 | 29 | 58 | 7 | 40 | 19 |
| Combination method | 84 | 31 | 60 | 8 | 37 | 20 |
| Pathological | 78 | 33 | 64 | 9 | 35 | 21 |
Comparison of ultrasound, CT, combined ultrasound and CT, and pathological results.
| Ultrasound | CT | Combination method | Pathological | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number | Percent | Number | Percent | Number | Percent | Number | Percent | |
| Benign | 158 | 65.8% | 127 | 52.9% | 121 | 50.4% | 113 | 47.1% |
| Malignant | 82 | 34.2% | 113 | 47.1% | 119 | 49.6% | 127 | 52.9% |
|
| ||||||||
| Total | 240 | 100% | 240 | 100% | 240 | 100% | 240 | 100% |
Sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of ultrasound, CT, and combined ultrasound and CT.
| Sensitivity | Specificity | Accuracy | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ultrasound | 52.8% | 86.7% | 68.75% |
| CT | 80.3% | 90.3% | 85.0% |
| Combined ultrasound | 89.0% | 94.7% | 91.7% |
Suggested treatment based on different tests.
| Treatment | Ultrasound | CT | Combined application | Pathological |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| A | 144 (60%) | 87 (36.3%) | 108 (45%) | 113 (47.1%) |
| B | 13 (5.4%) | 12 (5%) | 7 (3%) | 4 (1.7%) |
| C | 26 (10.8%) | 40 (16.7%) | 33 (13.8%) | 32 (13.3%) |
| D | 34 (14.2%) | 30 (12.5%) | 15 (6.3%) | 8 (3.3%) |
| E | 23 (9.6%) | 71 (29.6%) | 77 (32.1%) | 83 (34.6%) |
|
| ||||
| Total | 240 (100%) | 240 (100%) | 240 (100%) | 240 (100%) |
A: mass removal; B: hysterectomy; C: mass removal and staging; D: hysterectomy with oophorectomy; E: oophorectomy with staging.