Objective: To evaluate the accuracy of the 5 sonographic morphology scoring (SMS) systems (Sassone, DePriest, Lerner, Vera and Kawai and Valentin) for prediction of malignant ovarian tumors. Methods: A diagnostic study was conducted at Songklanagarind Hospital during November 2008 to June 2009. All of the patients scheduled for elective surgery due to ovarian tumors underwent transabdominal or transvaginal sonography within 72 h before the operation. The pictures were recorded. Attention was given to volume, wall and septal thickness, locularity, echogenicity, and papillary and internal surface of the tumor. The 5 SMS systems were applied later by the first author, who was not aware of the clinical data. The final diagnosis was determined by a histopathological report and was categorized into benign or malignant ovarian tumor. Borderline tumors were included in the malignant group. Results: One hundred and forty-six patients were recruited; 82 benign (56.2%), 14 borderline (9.6%), and 50 malignant tumors (34.2%). The sensitivities of the SMS by Sassone, DePriest, Lerner, Vera and Kawai and Valentin were 75, 89.1, 82.8, 79.7 and 82.8% and the specificities were 79.3, 73.2, 68.3, 82.9 and 85.4%, respectively. Conclusions: Among the 5 systems, the DePriest system is the most sensitive SMS for the prediction of ovarian cancer.

Keywords:
Ultrasonography, Malignant ovarian tumor, Ovarian tumor , Diagnosis
1.
Ferlay J, Shin HR, Bray F, Forman D, Mathers C, Parkin DM: Estimates of worldwide burden of cancer in 2008: GLOBOCAN 2008. Int J Cancer 2010;127:2893-2917.
2.
Siegel R, Naishadham D, Jemal A: Cancer statistic 2012. CA Cancer J Clin 2012;62:10-29.
3.
Sriplung H, Sontipong S, Martin N, Wiangnon S, Vootiprux V, Cheirsilpa A, et al: Cancer in Thailand, vol III, 1995-1997; in: Ministry of Public Health, Ministry of University Affairs, National Cancer Institute Report. Bangkok, Medicine Publisher, 2004, pp 1-161.
4.
Jemal A, Siegel R, Ward E, Murray T, Xu J, Smigal C, et al: Cancer statistics, 2006. CA Cancer J Clin 2006;56:106-130.
5.
Junor EJ, Hole DJ, McNulty L, Mason M, Young J: Specialist gynaecologists and survival outcome in ovarian cancer: a Scottish national study of 1,866 patients. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1999;106:1130-1136.
6.
Sassone AM, Timor-Tritsch IE, Artner A, Westhoff C, Warren WB: Transvaginal sonographic characterization of ovarian disease: evaluation of a new scoring system to predict ovarian malignancy. Obstet Gynecol 1991;78:70-76.
7.
DePriest PD, Shenson D, Fried A, Hunter JE, Andrews SJ, Gallion HH, et al: A morphology index based on sonographic findings in ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol 1993;51:7-11.
8.
Lerner JP, Timor-Tritsch IE, Federman A, Abramovich G: Transvaginal ultrasonographic characterization of ovarian masses with an improved weighted scoring system. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1994;170:81-85.
9.
Benjapibal M, Sunsaneevitayakul P, Phatihattakorn C, Suphanit I, Iamurairat W: Sonographic morphological pattern in the pre-operative prediction of ovarian masses. J Med Assoc Thai 2003;86:332-337.
10.
Tongsong T, Wanapirak C, Sukpan K, Khunamornpong S, Pathumbal A: Subjective sonographic assessment for differentiation between malignant and benign adnexal masses. Asian Pacific J Cancer Prev 2006;7:124-126.
11.
Ferrazzi E, Zanetta G, Dordoni D, Berlanda N, Mezzopane R, Lissoni AA: Transvaginal ultrasonographic characterization of ovarian masses: comparison of five scoring systems in a multicenter study. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1997;10:192-197.
12.
Timmerman D, Ameye L, Fischerova D, Epstein E, Melis GB, Guerriero S, et al: Simple ultrasound rules to distinguish between benign and malignant adnexal masses before surgery: prospective validation by IOTA group. BMJ 2010;341:c6839.
13.
Granberg S, Norstrom A, Wikland M: Tumors in the lower pelvis as imaged by vaginal sonography. Gynecol Oncol 1990;37:224-229.
© 2013 S. Karger AG, Basel
2013
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.