Diagnostic Accuracy of Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Pelvic Masses

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 Professor, Department of Gynecology Oncology, Women’s Health Research Center, Faculty of Medicine, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran.

2 Resident, Department of Thoracic Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran.

3 Associate Professor, Department of Radiology, Faculty of Medicine, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran.

4 Assistant Professor, Department of Radiology, Faculty of Medicine, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran.

5 Associate Professor, Department of Molecular Medicine, Clinical Research Center, Faculty of Medicine, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran.

6 Resident, Department of Persian Medicine, School of Persian and Complementary Medicine, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran.

10.22038/ijogi.2025.86339.6371

Abstract

Introduction: Pelvic mass is considered a common occurrence in women of all age groups, and diagnosing the cause of the mass before determining an appropriate treatment plan is essential. Physical examination alone is not reliable. Imaging tools play a key role in identifying the type, size, and other characteristics of the mass. MRI appears to have greater potential in mass diagnosis compared to ultrasonography and CT scan. The present study was conducted with aim to evaluate the accuracy of MRI in diagnosing pelvic masses.
Methods: This descriptive-analytical study was conducted from 2017 to 2019 at Qaem (AJ) Hospital, Mashhad. Patients’ demographic data were extracted from medical records, and the results of ultrasonography and MRI were compared with pathology findings (as the diagnostic gold standard). Data were analyzed using SPSS software (version 20), and sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value were calculated. P<0.05 was considered statistically significant.
Results: A total of 62 patients were included in the study. The sensitivity and specificity of MRI were 93.3% and 87.2%, respectively, while these values for abdominal ultrasonography were 60% and 60%. The positive and negative predictive values of MRI for malignant masses were 70% and 97.6%, respectively. Agreement between MRI and abdominal ultrasonography in determining the type of mass, based on the kappa coefficient, was not statistically significant (P>0.05).
Conclusion: MRI is an accurate and reliable tool for diagnosing pelvic masses and can prevent unnecessary surgeries. Moreover, MRI is helpful in selecting the type of surgery and therapeutic interventions.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

  1. Sundararajan S, Cass GK. The pelvic mass: assessment and evaluation. Obstetrics, Gynaecology & Reproductive Medicine 2023; 33(4):111-7.
  2. Mobeen S, Apostol R. Ovarian cyst. In StatPearls; Internet, Updated 13 June 2022; StatPearls Publishing: Treasure Island, FL, USA; 2022.
  3. Biggs WS, Marks ST. Diagnosis and management of adnexal masses. American family physician 2016; 93(8):676-81.
  4. Alcazar JL, Martinez N, Juez L, Caparros M, Salas A, Errasti T. Ovarian simple cysts in asymptomatic postmenopausal women detected at transvaginal ultrasound: A review of literature. World Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 2015; 4(4):108-12.
  5. Carvalho JP, Moretti-Marques R, da Silva Filho AL. Adnexal mass: diagnosis and management. Revista Brasileira de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia/RBGO Gynecology and Obstetrics 2020; 42(07):438-43.
  6. Chandramohan A, Bhat TA, John R, Simon B. Multimodality imaging review of complex pelvic lesions in female pelvis. The British Journal of Radiology 2020; 93(1116):20200489.
  7. Foti PV, Attinà G, Spadola S, Caltabiano R, Farina R, Palmucci S, et al. MR imaging of ovarian masses: classification and differential diagnosis. Insights into imaging 2016; 7(1):21-41.
  8. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Practice bulletin no. 174: evaluation and management of adnexal masses. Obstetrics and gynecology 2016; 128(5):e210-26.
  9. Bottazzi S, Ninkova RV, Russo L, Ponsiglione A, Gui B, Demundo D, et al. Incidental findings in female pelvis MRI performed for gynaecological malignancies. Insights into Imaging 2025; 16:143.
  10. Gangadhar K, Mahajan A, Sable N, Bhargava P. Magnetic resonance imaging of pelvic masses: a compartmental approach. InSeminars in Ultrasound, CT and MRI 2017; 38(3):213-230.
  11. Pereira PN, Sarian LO, Yoshida A, Araújo KG, Barros RH, Baião AC, et al. Accuracy of the ADNEX MR scoring system based on a simplified MRI protocol for the assessment of adnexal masses. Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology 2018; 24(2):63.
  12. Ruiz M, Labauge P, Louboutin A, Limot O, Fauconnier A, Huchon C. External validation of the MR imaging scoring system for the management of adnexal masses. European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology 2016; 205:115-9.
  13. Thomassin-Naggara I, Fedida B, Sadowski E, Chevrier MC, Chabbert-Buffet N, Ballester M, et al. Complex US adnexal masses during pregnancy: Is pelvic MR imaging accurate for characterization?. European journal of radiology 2017; 93:200-8.
  14. Anthoulakis C, Nikoloudis N. Pelvic MRI as the “gold standard” in the subsequent evaluation of ultrasound-indeterminate adnexal lesions: a systematic review. Gynecologic oncology 2014; 132(3):661-8.
  15. Salman S, Shireen N, Riyaz R, Khan SA, Singh JP, Uttam A. Magnetic resonance imaging evaluation of gynecological mass lesions: A comprehensive analysis with histopathological correlation. Medicine 2024; 103(32):e39312.
  16. Selntigia A, Molinaro P, Tartaglia S, Pellicer A, Galliano D, Cozzolino M. Adenomyosis: an update concerning diagnosis, treatment, and fertility. Journal of Clinical Medicine 2024; 13(17):5224.
  17. Zhang X, Meng X, Dou T, Sun H. Diagnostic accuracy of transvaginal ultrasound examination for assigning a specific diagnosis to adnexal masses: A meta-analysis. Experimental and therapeutic medicine 2020; 20(6):265.
  18. Cui L, Xu H, Zhang Y. Diagnostic accuracies of the ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging ADNEX scoring systems for ovarian adnexal mass: systematic review and meta-analysis. Academic radiology 2022; 29(6):897-908.
  19. Wattar B, Rimmer M, Rogozinska E, Macmillian M, Khan KS, Al Wattar BH. Accuracy of imaging modalities for adnexal torsion: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology 2021; 128(1):37-44.
  20. Zhang B, Han X. Diagnostic Value of Contrast‐Enhanced Ultrasound in Benign and Malignant Adnexal Masses: A Meta‐Analysis. Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine 2025; 44(1):5-14.
The Iranian Journal of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Infertility
Volume 28, Issue 9
November 2025
Pages 1-10

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics