OBJECTIVE: To extend our previous findings on the diagnostic validity of ovarian stroma hypertrophy in women with hyperandrogenic and/or menstrual disorders. DESIGN: Transvaginal ultrasonography was performed in 69 patients complaining of hyperandrogenism and/or menstrual disorders and in 48 normal ovulatory women in early follicular phase. To check the validity of stroma assessment by visual analysis, we used computer-assisted analysis, which allowed selective measurement of the stromal area on a longitudinal ovarian cut. Sensitivity and specificity of each method were estimated by using the normative data from the control group. RESULTS: Stromal area was considered to be increased using visual analysis and computer-assisted analysis in 74% and 61% patients, respectively. Specificity of this sign was 84% and 96% by visual analysis and computer-assisted analysis, respectively. In patients, the increase in stromal area correlated very significantly with the one of total ovarian area, whose upper normal limit was 5.5 cm2 per ovary. CONCLUSION: Visual assessment of stroma may be misleading in some cases, with the risk of overestimating its hypertrophy. An increased total ovarian area > 5.5 cm2 (which can easily be detected by carefully shaping a strict longitudinal ovarian cut) has the same diagnostic value as an increased stromal area by computerized measurement.
OBJECTIVE: To extend our previous findings on the diagnostic validity of ovarian stroma hypertrophy in women with hyperandrogenic and/or menstrual disorders. DESIGN: Transvaginal ultrasonography was performed in 69 patients complaining of hyperandrogenism and/or menstrual disorders and in 48 normal ovulatory women in early follicular phase. To check the validity of stroma assessment by visual analysis, we used computer-assisted analysis, which allowed selective measurement of the stromal area on a longitudinal ovarian cut. Sensitivity and specificity of each method were estimated by using the normative data from the control group. RESULTS: Stromal area was considered to be increased using visual analysis and computer-assisted analysis in 74% and 61% patients, respectively. Specificity of this sign was 84% and 96% by visual analysis and computer-assisted analysis, respectively. In patients, the increase in stromal area correlated very significantly with the one of total ovarian area, whose upper normal limit was 5.5 cm2 per ovary. CONCLUSION: Visual assessment of stroma may be misleading in some cases, with the risk of overestimating its hypertrophy. An increased total ovarian area > 5.5 cm2 (which can easily be detected by carefully shaping a strict longitudinal ovarian cut) has the same diagnostic value as an increased stromal area by computerized measurement.
Authors: P Villa; A Rossodivita; A M Fulghesu; F Cucinelli; A Barini; R Apa; C Belosi; A Lanzone Journal: J Endocrinol Invest Date: 2003-04 Impact factor: 4.256