Differential diagnosis of ovarian neoplasm using contrast-enhanced ultrasound (clinical case)
https://doi.org/10.51793/OS.2022.25.6.002
Abstract
Diagnosis of ovarian neoplasms is one of the most difficult tasks in practical gynecology. In the area of the uterine appendages, both true tumors and tumor-like formations, as well as formations emanating from other organs of the abdominal cavity and small pelvis, can be located. Difficulties in the timely diagnosis of ovarian tumors lie in the absence of clinically expressed precancerous conditions and are aggravated by their complex pathogenesis. Due to the high risk of malignant rebirth of ovarian tumors and the inability to diagnose a precancerous condition, the problem of early detection of ovarian neoplasm seems to be the most relevant. Today, it is possible to classify a tumor as malignant and determine its stage only after surgical operation with subsequent histological examination of removed tissues. Further patient treatment are based on the results of a histological examination. The description of this clinical case may help to enhance the capabilities and knowledge of practitioners in their approach to differential diagnosis of ovarian tumors. Patient N., 33 years old in April 2020, turned to the hospital named after D.D. Pletnev in the direction from the women's consultation with a diagnosis: left ovarian cyst, pain syndrome. The subject of interest of this clinical case is the differential diagnosis of ovarian neoplasm. Taking into account the results of the preliminary examination, we can think about a malignant ovarian neoplasm, relapse of the ovarian dermoid cyst, ovarian fibroma, uterine myoma with subserosal localization of node. That’s why an important task is to create optimal algorithms for diagnosing and routing patients in case of suspicion of an adnexal tumor. Modern diagnostics of ovarian tumors cannot be based on one research method, but requires a whole range of diagnostic measures that determine the tactics of introducing patients in each specific case.
About the Authors
N. Е. Safonova
Federal State Budgetary Educational Institution of Additional Professional Education Russian Medical Academy of Continuous Professional Education of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation; D. D. Pletnev City Clinical Hospital of Moscow Healthcare Department
Россия
Россия
Nataliya Е. Safonova, PhD student of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology; obstetrician gynecologist
2/1 b. 1 Barricadnaya str., Moscow, 125993
32 11th Parkovaya str., Moscow, 105077
N. М. Podzolkova
Federal State Budgetary Educational Institution of Additional Professional Education Russian Medical Academy of Continuous Professional Education of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation
Россия
Россия
Nataliya М. Podzolkova, Dr. of Sci. (Med.), Professor, Head of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology
2/1 b. 1 Barricadnaya str., Moscow, 125993
V. В. Osadchev
Federal State Budgetary Educational Institution of Additional Professional Education Russian Medical Academy of Continuous Professional Education of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation; D. D. Pletnev City Clinical Hospital of Moscow Healthcare Department
Россия
Россия
Vasily В. Osadchev, MD, Associate Professor of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology; Head of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, obstetrician gynecologist
2/1 b. 1 Barricadnaya str., Moscow, 125993
32 11th Parkovaya str., Moscow, 105077
K. V. Babkov
Federal State Budgetary Educational Institution of Additional Professional Education Russian Medical Academy of Continuous Professional Education of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation; D. D. Pletnev City Clinical Hospital of Moscow Healthcare Department
Россия
Россия
Kirill V. Babkov, MD, Associate Professor of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology; obstetrician gynecologist
2/1 b. 1 Barricadnaya str., Moscow, 125993
32 11th Parkovaya str., Moscow,
I. Е. Fadeev
Federal State Budgetary Educational Institution of Additional Professional Education Russian Medical Academy of Continuous Professional; I. V. Davidovsky City Clinical Hospital of Moscow Healthcare Department
Россия
Россия
Igor Е. Fadeev, MD, Associate Professor of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology; obstetrician gynecologist
2/1 b. 1 Barricadnaya str., Moscow, 125993
11 Yauzskaya str., Moscow, 109240
References
1. Ortiz-Muñoz B., Aznar-Oroval E., García García A., Covisa Peris A., Perez Ballestero P., Sanchez Yepes M., Garcia Lozano T., Illueca Ballester C., García Garcia E. HE4, CA 125 and ROMA algorithm for differential diagnosis between benign gynaecological diseases and ovarian cancer // Tumour Biol. 2014; 35 (7): 7249-7258. Epub 2014 Apr 27. DOI: 10.1007/s13277-014-1945-6.
2. Mahesh S. Imaging and differential diagnosis of ovarian cancer. Semin Ultrasound CT MR. 2019; 40 (4): 302-318. DOI: 10.1053/j.sult.2019.04.002. Epub 2019 Apr 25.
3. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Management of adnexal masses // Obstet Gynecol. 2007; 110 (1): 201.
4. Orr B., Edwards R. P. Diagnosis and treatment of ovarian cancer // Hematol Oncol Clin North Am. 2018; 32 (6): 943-964. DOI: 10.1016/j.hoc.2018.07.010.
5. The role of the obstetrician – gynecologist in the early detection of epithelial ovarian cancer in women at average risk. Committee Opinion No. 716. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists // Obstet Gynecol. 2017; 130: e146-149. ISSN 1074-861X.
6. Babacan A., Kizilaslan C., Gun I., Muhcu M., Mungen E., Atay V. CA125 and other tumor markers in uterine leiomyomas and their association with lesion characteristics. Int J Clin Exp Med. 2014;7:1078-83 // eCollection. 2014. PMID: 24955185. PMCID: PMC4057864.
7. Sheth S. S., Ray S. S. Severe adenomyosis and CA 125 // J Obstet Gynaecol. 2014; 34 (1): 79-81. PMID: 24359057. DOI: 10.3109/01443615.2013.832178.
8. Cho F. N., Liu C. B., Li J. Y., Chen S. N., Yu K. J. Dramatic changes of CA125 levels in a pregnant two man with a degenerated subserosal myoma // Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol. 2012; 51: 117-118.
9. Glorie N., Baert T., Van Den Bosch T., Coosemans A. N. СА 125 Circulating protein biomarkers to differentiate uterine sarcomas from leiomyomas // Anticancer Res. 2019; 39 (8): 3981-3989. PMID: 31366479. DOI: 10.21873/anticanres.13553.
10. Juang C. M., Yen M. S., Horng H. C., Twu N. F., Yu H. C., Hsu W. L. Potential role of preoperative serum CA 125 for the differential diagnosis between uterine leiomyoma and uterine leiomyosarcoma // Eur J Gynaecol Oncol. 2006; 27 (4): 370-4. PMID: 17009628.
11. Pietro V. F., Giancarlo A. S. et al. MRI of ovarian masses: classification and differential diagnosis insights imaging // Insights Imaging. 2016; 7 (1): 21-41. Published online 2015 Dec 16.
12. Sehgal N. Efficacy of color doppler ultrasonography in differentiation of ovarian masses // J Midlife Health. 2019; 10 (1): 22-28. DOI: 10.4103/jmh.JMH_23_18.
13. Liu Z., Yang F., Zhang Y., Yu H., Zhu H., Yang R., Fan L. Conventional, doppler and contrast-Enhanced ultrasonography in differential diagnosis of ovarian masses // Saudi Med J. 2017; 38 (6): 592-597. DOI: 10.15537/smj.2017.6.19790.
14. Kaijser J., Bourne T., Valentin L., Sayasneh A., Van Holsbeke C., Vergote I., Testa A. C., Franchi D., Van Calster B., Timmerman D. Improving strategies for diagnosing ovarian cancer: a summary of the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis (IOTA) studies // Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2013; 41 (1): 9-20. DOI: 10.1002/uog.12323.
15. Garg S., Kaur A., Mohi J. K., Sibia P. K., Kaur N. Evaluation of IOTA Simple Ultrasound Rules to distinguish benign and malignant ovarian tumours // J Clin Diagn Res. 2017; 11 (8): TC06-TC09. DOI: 10.7860/JCDR/2017/26790.10353. Epub 2017 Aug 1.
16. Valentin L., Ameye L., Savelli L., Fruscio R., Leone F. P., Czekierdowski A., Lissoni A. A., Fischerova D., Guerriero S., Van Holsbeke C., Van Huffel S., Timmerman D. Adnexal masses difficult to classify as benign or malignant using subjective assessment of gray-scale and Doppler ultrasound findings: logistic regression models do not help // Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2011; 38 (4): 456-465. DOI: 10.1002/uog.9030. Epub 2011 Sep 13.
17. Baker M. F., McCarthy J., Spellacy W. N., Cardosi R. P. Serum CA 125 levels in women with uterine leiomyomata and are view of the literature // J Gynecol Surg. 2007; 23: 19-22.
18. Stoelinga B., Dooper Anniek M. C., Juffermans Lynda J. M., Postema Arnoud W., Wijkstra H., Brölmann Hans A. M., Huirne Judith A. F. Use of Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound in the Assessment of Uterine Fibroids: A Feasibility Study // Ultrasound Med Biol. 2018; 44 (8): 1901-1909. Epub 2018 May 4. DOI: 10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2018.03.030.
19. Solopova A. Ye., Makatsariya A. D., Sdvizhkov A. M., Ternovoy S. K. Magnetic resonance imaging in the differential diagnosis of ovarian formations. Possibilities of quantitative multiparametric assessment // Akusherstvo i Ginekologiya. 2017; 2. https://dx.doi.org/10.18565/aig.2017.2.80-5.
20. Thakrar D. B., Sultan M. J. The Role of contrast-enhanced ultrasound in managing vascular pathologies // J Med Imaging Radiat Sci. 2019; 50 (4): 590-595. DOI: 10.1016/j.jmir.2019.08.010. Epub 2019 Nov 6.
21. Kaspar M., Partovi S., Aschwanden M., Imfeld S., Baldi T., Uthoff H., Staub D. Assessment of microcirculation by contrast-enhanced ultrasound: a new approach in vascular medicine // Swiss Med Wkly. 2015; 145: w14047. DOI: 10.4414/smw.2015.14047. eCollection 2015. PMID: 25588141.
Review
For citations:
Safonova N.Е., Podzolkova N.М., Osadchev V.В., Babkov K.V., Fadeev I.Е. Differential diagnosis of ovarian neoplasm using contrast-enhanced ultrasound (clinical case). Lechaschi Vrach. 2022;(5-6):14-19. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.51793/OS.2022.25.6.002
Views:
187
JATS XML
Email this article 
