Adnexal mass: a clinicopathological study at a tertiary care centre in Assam, India
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18203/2320-1770.ijrcog20191199Keywords:
Adnexal mass, Clinical examination, Ultrasonography, HistopathologyAbstract
Background: An adnexal mass may be found in females of all ages with significantly variable prevalence, but more common among women of reproductive age. Adnexal masses pose a special dilemma to the attending gynaecologist because the diagnosis is often difficult and differential diagnosis is vast. Clinical examination is the first step in evaluation of patients with adnexal mass. Pelvic masses which are undetected or overlooked on physical examination can be identified by Ultrasonography. The aims and objectives of the study were to: to find out different types of adnexal pathology clinically, correlation of clinical finding with histopathology, correlation of ultrasonography finding with histopathology.
Methods: The present study was carried in the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Assam medical college and hospital, Dibrugarh from 1st July 2017 to 30th June 2018. This study was a hospital based observational study which included 145 patients of adnexal mass attending the GOPD who required admission and operative intervention. All cases underwent an abdominal ultrasound examination with color Doppler. Transvaginal sonography was done wherever feasible. Following surgery, specimens were sent for histopathological examination and the reports were correlated with pre-operative clinical and ultrasonography findings.
Results: The most common site of origin of adnexal mass was ovary (92.41%) followed by fallopian tube (6.20%) and broad ligament (1.39%). Majority (79.31%) were non neoplastic or benign adnexal masses. All cases of adnexal malignancy were of ovarian origin. The sensitivity and specificity of clinical examination for diagnosis and discriminating benign and malignant ovarian neoplasms were 70% and 86.6% and that of ultrasonography was 86.67% and 96.65% respectively.
Conclusions: Adnexal mass in reproductive age group were mostly non neoplastic and benign, whereas malignancy was mostly seen in peri and post-menopausal age group. Ultrasonography is a useful adjunct to clinical examination for diagnosis and proper management of patients with adnexal mass in low resource setup.
References
Jeffcoate’s principles of gynaecology, 8th edition; 2014:490-527.
Rauh-Hain JA, Melamed A, Buskwofie A, Schorge JO. Adnexal mass in the postmenopausal patient. Clinic Obstetr Gynecol. 2015;58(1):53-65.
Zaman S, Majid S, Hussain M, Chughtai O, Mahboob J, Chughtai S. A retrospective study of ovarian tumours and tumour-like lesions. J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad. 2010; 22 (1):104-8.
Alcázar JL, Guerriero S, Laparte C, Ajossa S, Ruiz-Zambrana Á, Melis GB. Diagnostic performance of transvaginal gray-scale ultrasound for specific diagnosis of benign ovarian cysts in relation to menopausal status. Maturit. 2011;68(2):182-8.
Middleton WD, Kurtz AB, Hertzberg BS. Ultrasound: The requisites. St Louis, MI: Mosby; 2004:610.
Pourissa M, Refahi S, Moghangard F. The diagnostic accuracy of abdominal ultrasound imaging for detection of ovarian masses. Iran J Radiol 2007;4:103-7.
Goff BA, Mandel LS, Melancon CH, Muntz HG. Frequency of symptoms of ovarian cancer in women presenting to primary care clinics. JAMA 2004;291:2705-12.
Smith LH, Morris CR, Yasmeen S, Parikh-Patel A, Cress RD, Romano PS. Ovarian cancer: can we make the clinical diagnosis earlier?. Canc 2005;104:1398-407.
Sokalska A, Timmerman D, Testa AC, Van Holsbeke C, Lissoni AA, Leone FP, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of transvaginal ultrasound examination for assigning a specific diagnosis to adnexal masses. Ultrasound Obstetr Gynecol. 2009;34(4):462-70.
Jacob IJ, Menon U. Progress and challenges in screening for early detection of ovarian cancer. Mol Cell Proteomics. 2004;3:355-66.
Ganga P, Suneeta KP, Dhaded AV, Yenni VV. Ovarian tumours. JIMA. 2002:100 (07).
Sharma I, Sarma U, Dutta UC. Pathology of ovarian tumour-A hospital based study. Int J Med Sci Clin Inv. 2014;1(6):284-6.
Yogambal M, Arunalatha P, Chandramouleeswari K, Palaniappan V. Ovarian tumours-incidence and distribution in a tertiary referral center in south India. IOSR-JDMS. 2014;13(2):74-80.
Radhamani S, Akhila MV. Evaluation of adnexal masses-correlation of clinical, sonological and histopathological findings in adnexal masses. Inter J Scientific Study. 2017; 4 (11): 88-92.
Bhagde AD, Jani SK, Patel MS, Shah SR. An analytical study of 50 women presenting with an adnexal mass. Inter J Reprod Contracept Obstetr Gynecol. 2016; 6 (1): 262-5.
Al-Shukri M, Mathew M, Al-Ghafri W, Al-Kalbani M, Al-Kharusi L, Gowri V. A clinicopathological study of women with adnexal masses presenting with acute symptoms. Ann Med Health Sci Res 2014; 4: 286-8.
Kanthikar SN, Dravid NV, Deore PN, Nikumbh DB, Suryawanshi KH. Clinico-histopathological analysis of neoplastic and non-neoplastic lesions of the ovary: a 3-year prospective study in Dhule, North Maharashtra, India. Journal of clinical and diagnostic research: JCDR. 2014;8(8):FC04.
Balbi GC, Musone R, Menditto A, Balbi F, Corcioni C, Calabria G, et al. Women with a pelvic mass: indicators of malignancy. European J Gynaecol Oncol. 2001;22(6):459-62.
Padilla LA, Radosevich DM, Milad MP. Accuracy of the pelvic examination in detecting adnexal masses. Obstet Gynecol. 2000; 96: 593-8.
