Donald School Journal of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology

Register      Login

VOLUME 18 , ISSUE 1 ( January-March, 2024 ) > List of Articles


Differential Diagnosis and Detection of Malignancy of Ovarian Tumors

Zorancho Petanovski, Asim Kurjak

Keywords : Ovarian cancer, Three-dimensional/four-dimensional ultrasound, Two-dimensional/three-dimensional color Doppler

Citation Information : Petanovski Z, Kurjak A. Differential Diagnosis and Detection of Malignancy of Ovarian Tumors. Donald School J Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2024; 18 (1):53-64.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10009-2010

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 28-03-2024

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2024; The Author(s).


Ovarian cancer is the most common cause of death compared to other cancers. The development of ultrasonography has brought great progress in terms of detecting ovarian pathology. This is very important not only in order to detect malignant potential as early as possible but also to choose an adequate approach to treatment in women who have not completed their reproduction. The devastating fact is that around 65% of women with ovarian cancer have advanced disease (stage III/IV) at diagnosis and certainly a much lower survival rate in comparison with patients who have detected stage IA ovarian cancer, whose 5-year survival is over 90% of cases. Due to this fact, for decades, there has been a strong effort to improve the ultrasound findings in order to detect changes in the ovary and to establish markers that enable the recognition of the malignant potential of tumoral changes in the ovary. Three-dimensional/four-dimensional (3D/4D) ultrasound and color Doppler techniques should bring a new quality to the recognition of pathological changes in the ovaries. These new techniques should bring the most accurate preoperative diagnosis of ovarian tumor changes and definitely the intention to detect ovarian cancer at the earliest stage of the disease, which is central to decisions regarding clinical management and surgical planning.

PDF Share
  1. Jemal A, Tiwari RC, Murray T, et al. Cancer statistics, 2004. CA Cancer J Clin 2004;54(1):8–29. DOI: 10.3322/canjclin.54.1.8
  2. Valentin L, Ameye L, Franchi D, et al. Risk of malignancy in unilocular cysts: a study of 1148 adnexal masses classified as unilocular cysts at transvaginal ultrasound and review of the literature. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2013;41(1):80–89. DOI: 10.1002/uog.12308
  3. Exacoustos C, Romanini ME, Rinaldo D, et al. Preoperative sonographic features of borderline ovarian tumors. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2005;25(1):50–59. DOI: 10.1002/uog.1823
  4. Timmerman D, Valentin L, Bourne TH, et al. Terms, definitions and measurements to describe the sonographic features of adnexal tumors: a consensus opinion from the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis (IOTA) group. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2000;16(5):500–505. DOI: 10.1046/j.1469-0705.2000.00287.x
  5. Alcázar JL, Errasti T, Mínguez JA, et al. Sonographic features of ovarian cystadenofibromas: spectrum of findings. J Ultrasound Med 2001;20(8):915–919. DOI: 10.7863/jum.2001.20.8.915
  6. Brown DL, Dudiak KM, Laing FC. Adnexal masses: US characterization and reporting. Radiology 2010;254(2):342–354. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.09090552
  7. Van Holsbeke C, Van Calster B, Guerriero S, et al. Endometriomas: their ultrasound characteristics. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2010;35(6):730–740. DOI: 10.1002/uog.7668
  8. Kurjak A, Sparac V, Kupesic S, et al. Three-dimensional ultrasound and three-dimensional power Doppler in the assessment of adnexal masses. Ultrasound Rev Obstet Gynecol 2001;1(2):167–183. DOI: 10.1080/14722240108500425
  9. Saba L, Guerriero S, Sulcis R, et al. Mature and immature ovarian teratomas: CT, US and MR imaging characteristics. Eur J Radiol 2009;72(3):454–463. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2008.07.044
  10. Heintz AP, Odicino F, Maisonneuve P, et al. Carcinoma of the ovary. J Epidemiol Biostat 2001;6(1):107–138. PMID: 11385772.
  11. Abbas AM, Zahran KM, Nasr A, et al. A new scoring model for characterization of adnexal masses based on two-dimensional gray-scale and colour Doppler sonographic features. Facts Views Vis Obgyn 2014;6(2):68–74. PMID: 25009729.
  12. Kurjak A, Kupesic S, Sparac V, et al. Three-dimensional ultrasonographic and power Doppler characterization of ovarian lesions. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2000;16(4):365–371. DOI: 10.1046/j.1469-0705.2000.00185.x
  13. Kurjak A, Kupesić S, Grgić M, et al. Angiogeneza ginekoloskih tumora ispitana obojenim doplerom [Angiogenesis of gynecologic tumors studied with color Doppler]. Lijec Vjesn 1995;117(5-6):139–145. PMID: 8600327.
  14. Kurjak A, Panchal S, Medjedovic E, et al. The role of 3D Power Doppler in screening for ovarian cancer. Int J Biomed Healthc 2020;8(2):80–92. DOI: 10.5455/ijbh.2020.8.80-92
  15. Timmerman D, Ameye L, Fischerova D, et al. Simple ultrasound rules to distinguish between benign and malignant adnexal masses before surgery: prospective validation by IOTA group. BMJ 2010;341:c6839. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.c6839
  16. Van Calster B, Van Hoorde K, Valentin L, et al. Evaluating the risk of ovarian cancer before surgery using the adnex model to differentiate between benign, borderline, early and advanced stage invasive, and secondary metastatic tumours: prospective multicentre diagnostic study. BMJ 2014;349:g5920. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.g5920
  17. Kurjak A, Kupesic S, Sparac V, et al. The detection of stage I ovarian cancer by three-dimensional sonography and power Doppler. Gynecol Oncol 2003;90(2):258–264. DOI: 10.1016/s0090-8258(03)00205-1
  18. Kurjak A, Kupesic S, Sparac V, et al. Preoperative evaluation of pelvic tumors by Doppler and three-dimensional sonography. J Ultrasound Med 2001;20(8):829–840. DOI: 10.7863/jum.2001.20.8.829
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.