Skip to main content

Evaluation of the Adnexal Mass

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Ambulatory Gynecology
  • 688 Accesses

Abstract

Patients found to have a pelvic adnexal mass in the ambulatory setting are most often asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic. Rather than the need for urgent surgical management which is common in patients with acute pelvic symptomatology, patients with an adnexal mass in the ambulatory setting more often require quantification of the risk of malignancy or a structured plan for surveillance (Table 8.1). Refinements in ultrasound diagnostics (adnexal mass morphology, color flow Doppler), serum tumor markers, multivariate index assays, and genetic testing, when appropriate, have all become strategic in the assessment of an adnexal mass.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 99.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Herman AJ, Kluivers KB, Janssen LM, et al. Adnexal masses in children, adolescents and women of reproductive age in the Netherlands: a nationwide population-based cohort study. Gynecol Oncol. 2016;143:93–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Koonings PP, Campbell K, Mishell DR Jr, Grimes DA. Relative frequency of primary ovarian neoplasms: a 10- year review. Obstet Gynecol. 1989;74:921–6.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Kerlikowske K, Brown JS, Grady DR. Should women with familial ovarian cancer undergo prophylactic oophorectomy? Obstet Gynecol. 1992;80:700–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. van Nagell JR Jr, Miller RW, De Simone C, Ueland FR, Podzielinski I, Goodrich S, et al. Long-term survival of women with epithelial ovarian cancer detected by ultrasoungraphic screening. Obstet Gynecol. 2011;118:1212–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Sharma A, Apostolidou S, Burnell M, Campbell S, Habib M, Gentry-Maharaj A, et al. Risk of epithelial ovarian cancer in asymptomatic women with ultrasound-detected ovarian masses: a prospective cohort study within the UK collaborative trial of ovarian cancer screening (UKCTOCS). Ultrasound Onstet Gynecol. 2012;40:338–44.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Benacerraf BR. Ultrasonic diagnosis of ovarian masses: can the playing field be leveled and raised at the same time? Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2016;127:419–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Baily CL, Ueland FR, Land GL, DePriest PD, Gallion HH, Kryscio RJ, van Nagell JR Jr. The malignant potential of small cystic ovarian tumors in women over 50 years of age. Gynecol Oncol. 1998;69:3–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Modesitt SC, Pavlik EJ, Ueland FR, van Nagell JR Jr. Risk of malignancy in unicocular ovarian cystic tumors less than 10 cm in diameter. Obstet Gynecol. 2003;102:594–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Saunders BA, Pidzielinski I, Ware RA, Goodrich S, DeSimone CP, Ueland FR, et al. Risk of malignancy in sonographically confirmed septated cystic ovarian tumors. Gynecl Oncol. 2010;188:278–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Timmerman D, Calster B, Testa A, et al. Predicting the risk of malignancy in adnexal masses based on the Simple Rules from the international ovarian tumor analysis group. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2016;201:424–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Van Calster B, Van Hoorde K, Froyman W, et al. Practical guidance for applying the ADNEX model from the IOTA group to discriminate between different subtypes of adnexal tumors. Facts Views Vis Obgyn. 2015;7:32–41.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Timmerman D, Van Calster B, Jurkovic D, et al. Inclusion of CA-125 does not improve mathematical models developed to distinguish between benign and malignant adnexal tumors. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25:4194–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. van Nagell JR, Miller RW Jr, et al. Evaluation and management of ultrasonographically detected ovarian tumors in asymptomatic women. Obstet Gynecol. 2016;127:848–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Coleman RL, Herzog TJ, Chan DW, et al. Validation of a second-generation multivariate index assay for malignancy risk of adnexal masses. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2016;215:e1–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to John V. Knaus .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Knaus, J.V., Ward, K. (2018). Evaluation of the Adnexal Mass. In: Knaus, J., Jachtorowycz, M., Adajar, A., Tam, T. (eds) Ambulatory Gynecology. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-7641-6_8

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-7641-6_8

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4939-7639-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4939-7641-6

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics