Aims and Objective: To determine the ultrasound and computed tomographic characteristics of various adnexal masses. To study about the nature and location of the Adnexal mass and correlate with histological evaluation.

Materials and Methods: It was hospital based, observational, descriptive and cross sectional study with a sample of 50 patients during the period of 2years in the Department of Radiodiagnosis, VIMSAR, Burla. The patients were referred from the Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, VIMSAR, Burla. The referred cases were having clinical features of abdominal pain, abdominal lump, menstrual irregularity, ascites and anorexia or weight loss and suspected cases of adnexal masses Pregnant patients and those for follow up were excluded. The patients were subjected to ultrasound and CT.

Results: Out of total 50 cases, 14 were malignant and 36 were benign.

Conclusion: The fact on observation was that most of the adnexal masses were benign. The benign masses were maximum in the age group below 30 years while malignant masses were merely found in women ≥ 50 years-most common was malignant ovarian tumor.

Both USG AND CT were highly sensitive and specific and often complementary in nature.USG accurately diagnosed the adnexal masses while CT is the state of art imaging modality to determine the origin and characterization of its content.

Keywords: Ovarian Malignancy, Ultrasound, Computed Tomography.

1. Ferazzi E et al. Transvaginal ultrasono-graphic characterization of ovarian masses: comparision of five scoring systems in a multicenter study. Ultrasound obstetgyn-aecol 1997;10:192-197.
2. Stevens et al. Teratomas versus cystic haemorrhagic adnexal lesions: differenti-ation with proton selective fat saturation MR imaging. Radiology 1993;186:481-488.
3. Deland M et al.Ultrasonography in the diagnosis of tumors of the ovary. Surg. Gynaecology and Obstetric 1979,148-346.
4. Manivasacan J et al.Study of benign adnexal masses. Int J.Reprod Contracept Obstet and Gynaecol.2012 Dec;(1):12-16.
5. Ahmed et al. Characterisation of adnexal masses on trans abdominal ultrasonography and CT scan. Ann. Pak. Inst. Med. Sci. 2013;9(1):48-51.
6. Meyer et al.Ovarian carcinoma: value of CT in predicting success of de-bulking surgery. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1995;165:875-878.
7. Benacerraff BR et al.Sonographic accuracy in the diagnosis of ovarian masses.J Reprod Med 1990;35:491-495.
8. Moyle JW et al.Sonography of ovarian tumors: predictability of tumor.Amer J Radiol 1983;141:985-991.
9. Brown et al. Benign and malignant ovarian masses: selection of the most discriminating grey scale and Doppler sonographic features. Radiology 1998;208:103-110.
10. Stein SM et al. Differentiation of benign and malignant adnexal masses: relative value of grey scale, colour Doppler and spectral doppler sonography.AJR Am J Roentgenol 1995;164;381-386.
11. Buist MR et al. Comparative evaluation of diagnostic methods in ovarian carcinoma with emphasis on CT nad MRI. Gynaecol Oncol, 1994;52(2):191-198 .

Dr Braja Behari Panda

Associate Professor, Dept. of Radiodiagnosis,

VSS Institute of Medical Sciences and Research, Burla, Sambalpur, (Odisha),768017