Radiology
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Sanders, R. C.
Right arrow Articles by Abrams, H. L.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Sanders, R. C.
Right arrow Articles by Abrams, H. L.

Radiology, Vol 146, 439-442, Copyright © 1983 by Radiological Society of North America

ARTICLES

A prospective study of computed tomography and ultrasound in the detection and staging of pelvic masses

RC Sanders, BJ McNeil, HJ Finberg, SJ Hessel, SS Siegelman, DF Adams, PO Alderson and HL Abrams

Findings from computed tomography (CT) and ultrasound (US) examinations of 74 patients who were clinically thought to have pelvic masses and of 110 patients who had possible recurrence of pelvic tumors were analyzed. There was no significant difference in the ability of the two modalities to identify masses or to predict disease extent. Although both CT and US failed to detect some examples of spread outside of the pelvis, overstaging (apart from two cases of unconfirmed parametrial spread) did not occur with CT and occurred only once with US. The sensitivity was 0.96 for CT and 0.91 for US in the detection of pelvic masses. Both modalities had an accuracy of 0.81 in the detection of recurrent disease.


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 RadioGraphicsHome page
P. J. Woodward, K. Hosseinzadeh, and J. S. Saenger
From the Archives of the AFIP: Radiologic Staging of Ovarian Carcinoma with Pathologic Correlation
RadioGraphics, January 1, 2004; 24(1): 225 - 246.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 RadioGraphicsHome page
Y.-Y. Jeong, E. K. Outwater, and H. K. Kang
Imaging Evaluation of Ovarian Masses
RadioGraphics, September 1, 2000; 20(5): 1445 - 1470.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 RadiologyHome page
C. M. C. Tempany, K. H. Zou, S. G. Silverman, D. L. Brown, A. B. Kurtz, and B. J. McNeil
Staging of Advanced Ovarian Cancer: Comparison of Imaging Modalities-Report from the Radiological Diagnostic Oncology Group
Radiology, June 1, 2000; 215(3): 761 - 767.
[Abstract] [Full Text]

Home page
 RadioGraphicsHome page
S. Kawamoto, B. A. Urban, and E. K. Fishman
CT of Epithelial Ovarian Tumors
RadioGraphics, October 1, 1999; 19(90001): 85 - 102.
[Abstract] [Full Text]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
RADIOLOGY RADIOGRAPHICS RSNA JOURNALS ONLINE
Copyright © 1983 by the Radiological Society of North America.