• Dr Basanta Manjari Swain Associate Professor, Department of Radiodiagnosis, SCB MCH, CTC
  • Dr Subhashree Das MD Radiodiagnosis, SCB MCH,CTC
  • Dr Bijnan Kumar Rout MD Radiodiagnosis (continuing), SCB MCH, CTC


Aims and objectives The main objective of the study is to determine the efficiency of diagnostic imaging modalities like ultrasonography , computed tomography , and Magnetic Resonance 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%), and it 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.


1. Catherine Devine, Janio Szklaruk, Eric P, Tamm – Seminars in USG , CT, MRI, vol 26, Issue 3, june 2005,pg 172-204
2. Troiano RN, McCarthy S . Magnetic resonance imaging evaluation of adenexal mass. Semin USG CT MRI 1994;15:38-48
3. Saroja adusmilli, Herok . Hussain, Elaine M. caoili , William J. Weadoek Jhon P.Murray, Timothy D. Jhonson MRI of sonographically indeterminate adenexal mass AJR, September 2oo6
4. Fatima Mubarak,Muhammad, Shabaz Alam, Waseem Akhtar, Saima Hafeez April 2011 International journal of womens health
5. Tushar Prabha, Sunny Goal, Hemant K Mishra, Ankur Agarwal role of MRI in evaluation of female pelvic masses in comparison to USG J of evolution of Med and Dent Sci Nov. 06,2014 issue 59/ vol-03
6. Kinkel k, Luy, Mehduzade A, Pelte Mf,Hricak H. Indeterminate ovarian mass at USG , incremental value of second imaging test for characterization met analysis and Bayesian analysis Radiology 2005,236.85-94.
7. Karen M. Morton, MD, Ross A,Abrahams,MD and Elliote K.FISHMAN ,MD spiral CT of colon cancer.
8. Ulrich G Muller Lisse,Ulrike L. Muller Lisse, nononcologicalimaging imaging of male pelvis
9. Seung Eun Jung, Jae Mun Lee, Sung Eun Rha, Jae Young Byun, Jung Jim Jung CT and MRI of ovarian tumors with emphasid on differential diagnosis.
10. Scoutt L M, McCarthy , Lange R, Schwartz PE MR evaluation of clinically suspected adenexal masses j comput assist tomography 1994, 18, 609-618
How to Cite
Swain DB, Das DS, Rout DB. ROLE OF IMAGING (ULTRASONOGRAPHY, COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY AND MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING) IN THE EVALUATION OF PELVIC MASSES. Yuva Journal of Medical Sciences [Internet]. 9Jan.2018 [cited 23Mar.2018];4(1):15-0. Available from: