Journal of South Asian Federation of Obstetrics and Gynaecology

Register      Login

VOLUME 10 , ISSUE 3 ( July-September, 2018 ) > List of Articles


Adnexal Masses in Pregnancy: Added Value of Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Guiding Patient Management—Our Initial Experience

Poovini Soundararajan, Anupama Chandrasekharan, Rajeswaran Rangasami, Arunan Murali, Rajoo Ramachandran

Keywords : Adnexal mass, Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), Ovarian mass, Pregnancy, Red degeneration, Torsion, Ultrasound.

Citation Information : Soundararajan P, Chandrasekharan A, Rangasami R, Murali A, Ramachandran R. Adnexal Masses in Pregnancy: Added Value of Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Guiding Patient Management—Our Initial Experience. J South Asian Feder Obs Gynae 2018; 10 (3):204-208.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10006-1590

Published Online: 01-07-2015

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2018; The Author(s).


Aim: To assess the role of magnetic resonance imaging in management of adnexal masses encountered during pregnancy. Materials and methods: A prospective study was conducted in 40 pregnant patients referred for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) abdomen and pelvis after indeterminate findings on ultrasound examination. Total 13 of these 40 patients with adnexal lesions on both ultrasound and MRI were further studied in detail. The MRI images were acquired on 1.5 T machines. Only patients in whom follow up and final diagnosis were available were included in the study. Results: The 13 cases of adnexal lesions included 9 benign pathologies and 4 malignant adnexal lesions. MRI had accurately diagnosed malignancy in three of these patients with torsion additionally detected in the fourth patient. The 9 remaining cases were correctly interpreted as benign pathologies on MRI, which included cases of benign serous cystadenomas (n = 2), mature cystic teratomas (n = 2), endometriotic cyst (n = 1), hemorrhagic corpus luteal cyst (n = 1), torsed ovary (n = 1), hyperstimulated ovaries (n = 1) and subserosal fibroid with red degeneration (n = 1). MRI played a definitive role in deciding course of management in all cases of adnexal masses that required further characterization following initial ultrasound. Following MRI, nine patients underwent surgery during the ongoing pregnancy, one patient underwent ovarian cystectomy concurrently at the time of caesarean section, two patients were managed conservatively with imaging follow up and surgery was deferred until after delivery in one case. Conclusion: Although sonography is the primary imaging tool in evaluating obstetric patients, in selected cases where ultrasound is equivocal or indeterminate, MRI can serve as a problem solving tool to arrive at an accurate diagnosis and guide patient management. Clinical significance: Adnexal masses discovered in pregnancy present a clinical and imaging challenge. The MRI can decide the course of management by delineating benign and malignant entities and dictating the need for surgical intervention versus feasibility of conservative treatment.

PDF Share
  1. Chiang G, Levine D. Imaging of adnexal masses in pregnancy. Journal of ultrasound in medicine. 2004 Jun;23(6):805- 819.
  2. Usui R, Minakami H, Kosuge S, Iwasaki R, Ohwada M, Sato I. A retrospective survey of clinical, pathologic, and prognostic features of adnexal masses operated on during pregnancy. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Research. 2000 Apr 1;26(2):89-93.
  3. Struyk AP, Treffers PE. Ovarian tumors in pregnancy. ActaobstetriciaetgynecologicaScandinavica. 1984 Jan 1;63(5):421- 424.
  4. Leiserowitz GS. Managing ovarian masses during pregnancy. Obstetrical & gynecological survey. 2006 Jul 1;61(7):463- 470.
  5. Whitecar P, Turner S, Higby K. Adnexal masses in pregnancy: a review of 130 cases undergoing surgical management. American journal of obstetrics and gynecology. 1999 Jul 1;181(1):19-24.
  6. Williams PM, Fletcher S. Health effects of prenatal radiation exposure. American family physician. 2010 Sep 1;82(5):488- 493.
  7. Kanal E, Barkovich AJ, Bell C, Borgstede JP, Bradley Jr WG, Froelich JW, Gimbel JR, Gosbee JW, Kuhni Kaminski E, Larson PA. ACR guidance document on MR safe practices: 2013. Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging. 2013 Mar;37(3):501- 530.
  8. Hricak H, Chen M, Coakley FV, Kinkel K, Yu KK, Sica G, Bacchetti P, Powell CB. Complex adnexal masses: detection and characterization with MR imaging.multivariate analysis. Radiology. 2000 Jan;214(1):39-46.
  9. Sohaib SA, Mills TD, Sahdev A, Webb JA, Vantrappen PO, Jacobs IJ, Reznek RH. The role of magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasound in patients with adnexal masses. Clinical radiology. 2005 Mar 1;60(3):340-348.
  10. Adusumilli S, Hussain HK, Caoili EM, Weadock WJ, Murray JP, Johnson TD, Chen Q, Desjardins B. MRI of sonographically indeterminate adnexal masses. American Journal of Roentgenology. 2006 Sep;187(3):732-740.
  11. Corwin MT, Gerscovich EO, Lamba R, Wilson M, McGahan JP. Differentiation of ovarian endometriomas from hemorrhagic cysts at MR imaging: utility of the T2 dark spot sign. Radiology. 2013 Nov 13;271(1):126-132.
  12. Outwater EK, Siegelman ES, Hunt JL. Ovarian teratomas: tumor types and imaging characteristics. Radiographics. 2001 Mar;21(2):475-490.
  13. Sohaib SA, Sahdev A, Trappen PV, Jacobs IJ, Reznek RH. Characterization of adnexal mass lesions on MR imaging. American Journal of Roentgenology. 2003 May;180(5):1297- 1330.
  14. Thomassin-Naggara I, Fedida B, Sadowski E, Chevrier MC, Chabbert-Buffet N, Ballester M, Tavolaro S, Darai E. Complex US adnexal masses during pregnancy: Is pelvic MR imaging accurate for characterization?. European journal of radiology. 2017 Aug 1;93:200-208.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.