This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Google Scholar Articles by Asch, E. Articles by Hecht, J. L. PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Asch, E. Articles by Hecht, J. L.

Histologic, Surgical, and Imaging Correlations of Adnexal Masses

Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts USA (E.A.); and Departments of Radiology (D.L.), Obstetrics and Gynecology (Y.K.), and Pathology (J.L.H.), Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts USA.

Address correspondence to Deborah Levine, MD, Department of Radiology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, 330 Brookline Ave, Boston, MA 02215 USA. E-mail: dlevine{at}bidmc.harvard.edu

Objective. The purpose of this study was to quantify, categorize, and illustrate discrepancies between preoperative radiologic, surgical, and pathologic diagnoses and to assess the potential impact of discrepancies on clinical care. Methods. Adnexal masses reported by pathology during a 16-month period were included if prior imaging at our institution had been performed. Up to 3 sonographic, computed tomographic, and magnetic resonance imaging examinations were reviewed by a gynecologic sonographer and compared with the reported pathologic findings. Cases in which ambiguities were not resolved by consulting the surgical notes were reviewed by a gynecologic pathologist, who confirmed or modified the diagnosis and assigned a score to the pathology quality assurance issue: 0, no pathology quality assurance error; 1, differences in terminology; 2, discrepancy of diagnostic interpretation, benign findings; or 3, discrepancy of diagnostic interpretation, malignant findings. Results. Of 418 total masses, there was a discrepancy between imaging and pathology in 73 (17%) masses and 68 (21%) pathology reports. Twenty-five (6%) had pathology discrepancies resolved by correlation with the surgical notes alone (eg, torsion seen during surgery but not evident on pathologic examination). Histologic review was performed for 48 (11%) of 418 masses, with pathology errors identified in 34 (71%) of 48. Quality assurance scores were 0 (n = 14), 1 (n = 14), and 2 (n = 20), with no cases receiving a score of 3. Examples of pathology errors included gross (complex versus simple) and microscopic (neoplastic versus functional versus mesothelial) characterization of cysts, sizes of lesions not being described, characterization of fibrous lesions (cystadenofibroma versus cystadenoma), and lack of correlation with imaging (lesions not described). Conclusions. This study illustrates the importance of imaging, surgical, and histologic correlation in assessing the diagnostic accuracy of sonography of adnexal masses.

Key Words: adnexa • histology • ovary • quality assurance

Abbreviations: CT, computed tomographic • MRI, magnetic resonance imaging • QA, quality assurance

This article has been cited by other articles:

				D. Levine, E. Asch, T. S. Mehta, J. Broder, C. O'Donnell, and J. L. Hecht Assessment of Factors That Affect the Quality of Performance and Interpretation of Sonography of Adnexal Masses J. Ultrasound Med., May 1, 2008; 27(5): 721 - 728. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]