Diagnostics (Jan 2022)

Significance of Pelvic Fluid Observed during Ovarian Cancer Screening with Transvaginal Sonogram

  • Justin W. Gorski,
  • Charles S. Dietrich,
  • Caeli Davis,
  • Lindsay Erol,
  • Hayley Dietrich,
  • Nicholas J. Per,
  • Emily Lenk Ferrell,
  • Anthony B. McDowell,
  • McKayla J. Riggs,
  • Megan L. Hutchcraft,
  • Lauren A. Baldwin-Branch,
  • Rachel W. Miller,
  • Christopher P. DeSimone,
  • Holly H. Gallion,
  • Frederick R. Ueland,
  • John R. van Nagell,
  • Edward J. Pavlik

DOI
https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics12010144
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 12, no. 1
p. 144

Abstract

Read online

The primary objective was to examine the role of pelvic fluid observed during transvaginal ultrasonography (TVS) in identifying ovarian malignancy. A single-institution, observational study was conducted within the University of Kentucky Ovarian Cancer Screening trial from January 1987 to September 2019. We analyzed true-positive (TP), false-positive (FP), true-negative (TN), and false-negative (FN) groups for the presence of pelvic fluid during screening encounters. Measured outcomes were the presence and duration of fluid over successive screening encounters. Of the 48,925 women surveyed, 2001 (4.1%) had pelvic fluid present during a TVS exam. The odds ratio (OR) of detecting fluid in the comparison group (TN screen; OR = 1) significantly differed from that of the FP cases (benign pathology; OR: 13.4; 95% confidence interval (CI): 9.1–19.8), the TP cases with a low malignant potential (LMP; OR: 28; 95% CI: 26.5–29.5), TP ovarian cancer cases (OR: 50.4; 95% CI: 27.2–93.2), and FN ovarian cancer cases (OR: 59.3; 95% CI: 19.7–178.1). The mean duration that pelvic fluid was present for women with TN screens was 2.2 ± 0.05 encounters, lasting 38.7 ± 1.3 months. In an asymptomatic screening population, free fluid identified in TVS exams was more associated with ovarian malignancy than in the control group or benign ovarian tumors. While pelvic free fluid may not solely discriminate malignancy from non-malignancy, it appears to be clinically relevant and warrants thoughtful consideration.

Keywords