ROLE OF IMAGING (ULTRASONOGRAPHY, COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY AND MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING) IN THE EVALUATION OF PELVIC MASSES

Aims and objectives The main objective of the study is to determine the efficiency of diagnostic imagingmodalities like ultrasonography , computed tomography , and MagneticResonance Imaging and to narrow down the differential diagnosis in patients presenting with complaints of pain/mass per abdomen. Materials and methods The study consisted of 50 pts of both sexes and their ages were above 5 yrs and below 65 yrs .Of all the patients who underwent an ultrasound, masses Which were considered sonographically indeterminate or possibly malignant were further investigated with the help of a CT or MRI. The final diagnosis for each of 50 patients was established by the following methods.Histopathology,Surgical findings,Imaging follow up and clinical follow up. Results Of the 62 masses found in the 50 patients there were 49 benign,11 malignant and 2 patients had no true mass. In determining the origin and tissue content of 62 masses, sonography had poor agreement with the final diagnosis whereas CT and MRI had excellent agreement. Sonography could detect the origin in 30(48%) cases and it characterized 31/62 (50%) masses correctly.Of the 21 masses studied on MRI,origin could be detected in 20 cases correctly,and it correctly characterized 20/21 (95%) cases.Of the 14 masses studied on CT scan, origin could be detected in 13 cases(93%),andit characterized only 12/14(85.7%) masses correctly. Conclusion The study has shown that ultrasound, which currently is the initial imaging modality in the investigation of pelvic pathology, is inaccurate in characterizing and determining the organ of lesions in the pelvis.