Original scientific paper
Pelvic masses in female patients - interpretation pitfalls on MSCT and MR imaging
Ranka Štern-Padovan
; Clinical Institute of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Clinical Hospital Center Zagreb, University of Zagreb, School of Medicine, Zagreb, Croatia
Marko Kralik
; Clinical Institute of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Clinical Hospital Center Zagreb, University of Zagreb, School of Medicine, Zagreb, Croatia
Mario Lušić
; Clinical Institute of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Clinical Hospital Center Zagreb, University of Zagreb, School of Medicine, Zagreb, Croatia
Maja Hrabak
; Clinical Institute of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Clinical Hospital Center Zagreb, University of Zagreb, School of Medicine, Zagreb, Croatia
Maja Prutki
; Clinical Institute of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Clinical Hospital Center Zagreb, University of Zagreb, School of Medicine, Zagreb, Croatia
Abstract
Different conditions within the pelvis are presented with very few symptoms. Likewise, their imaging characteristics are usually non-specific, implying high chance of misinterpretation.
The aim of this paper is to point to the misinterpretation possibilities in computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance (MR) studies of the pelvic lesions and to outline their differential diagnosis. CT (11), MR (seven) or both (four patients) were performed in 22 female patients (age 23-69) with suspicious pelvic masses. Relevant laboratory and medical history data were available for most of the patients. Twenty patients underwent subsequent surgery and pathological findings were available in 18 cases.
After radiological examinations different diagnoses were proposed in respect to imaging findings and available clinical data: pelvic inflammatory disease (one), ovarian tumor (six), uterine tumor (eight), metastatic or recurrent tumor (four), lymphocele (one), and post-irradiation and post-chemotherapy changes (two) patients. Postoperative results of the pathological analysis differed from radiological diagnosis in three of 18 pathologically examined materials: one benign tumor was falsely characterized as possibly malignant by the radiologist, one surgically transposed ovary was described as tumor, and one case of post-irradiation changes was described as recurrent tumor.
Aside from knowing imaging characteristics, it is of great importance for radiologists to be aware of clinical, laboratory, and surgical protocols information as well as to have insight in patients’ prior imaging material in order to be able to correctly interpret imaging findings of the pelvic lesions.
Keywords
computed tomography; magnetic resonance imaging; pelvic neoplasms
Hrčak ID:
281484
URI
Publication date:
7.12.2006.
Visits: 802 *