Comparison of B-mode ultrasonography and computed tomography in gynecologic cancer

Charles H. Nash, David S Alberts, Thomas N. Suciu, Harlan R. Giles, Donald A. Tobias, Robert S. Waldman

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

11 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Fifteen patients with gynecologic malignancies were studied prospectively to determine the relative effectiveness of B-mode ultrasonography and abdominal computed tomography (CAT) scans in detecting and measuring the extent of tumor. All patients underwent surgical procedures to evaluate tumor size. In 8 of 12 patients with tumor present at surgery there was complete agreement between the scans and surgical findings. There were two false negative sonograms and two false negative CAT scans, but in no patient were both scans falsely negative. Three other patients had negative scans; at laparotomy no residual disease was detected. Considering the greater cost and time requirement of CAT scans, our results suggest that ultrasonography is a more efficacious method of following abdominal and pelvic tumor size in patients on therapy. The CAT scan can be used to increase diagnostic confidence and may be the noninvasive procedure of choice for the diagnosis of intrauterine tumor masses.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)172-179
Number of pages8
JournalGynecologic Oncology
Volume8
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - 1979

Fingerprint

Ultrasonography
Tomography
Neoplasms
Prenatal Diagnosis
Laparotomy
Costs and Cost Analysis
Therapeutics

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Obstetrics and Gynecology
  • Oncology

Cite this

Comparison of B-mode ultrasonography and computed tomography in gynecologic cancer. / Nash, Charles H.; Alberts, David S; Suciu, Thomas N.; Giles, Harlan R.; Tobias, Donald A.; Waldman, Robert S.

In: Gynecologic Oncology, Vol. 8, No. 2, 1979, p. 172-179.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Nash, Charles H. ; Alberts, David S ; Suciu, Thomas N. ; Giles, Harlan R. ; Tobias, Donald A. ; Waldman, Robert S. / Comparison of B-mode ultrasonography and computed tomography in gynecologic cancer. In: Gynecologic Oncology. 1979 ; Vol. 8, No. 2. pp. 172-179.
@article{fbc5568aeee644e8ac20737b0f711257,
title = "Comparison of B-mode ultrasonography and computed tomography in gynecologic cancer",
abstract = "Fifteen patients with gynecologic malignancies were studied prospectively to determine the relative effectiveness of B-mode ultrasonography and abdominal computed tomography (CAT) scans in detecting and measuring the extent of tumor. All patients underwent surgical procedures to evaluate tumor size. In 8 of 12 patients with tumor present at surgery there was complete agreement between the scans and surgical findings. There were two false negative sonograms and two false negative CAT scans, but in no patient were both scans falsely negative. Three other patients had negative scans; at laparotomy no residual disease was detected. Considering the greater cost and time requirement of CAT scans, our results suggest that ultrasonography is a more efficacious method of following abdominal and pelvic tumor size in patients on therapy. The CAT scan can be used to increase diagnostic confidence and may be the noninvasive procedure of choice for the diagnosis of intrauterine tumor masses.",
author = "Nash, {Charles H.} and Alberts, {David S} and Suciu, {Thomas N.} and Giles, {Harlan R.} and Tobias, {Donald A.} and Waldman, {Robert S.}",
year = "1979",
doi = "10.1016/0090-8258(79)90022-2",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "8",
pages = "172--179",
journal = "Gynecologic Oncology",
issn = "0090-8258",
publisher = "Academic Press Inc.",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparison of B-mode ultrasonography and computed tomography in gynecologic cancer

AU - Nash, Charles H.

AU - Alberts, David S

AU - Suciu, Thomas N.

AU - Giles, Harlan R.

AU - Tobias, Donald A.

AU - Waldman, Robert S.

PY - 1979

Y1 - 1979

N2 - Fifteen patients with gynecologic malignancies were studied prospectively to determine the relative effectiveness of B-mode ultrasonography and abdominal computed tomography (CAT) scans in detecting and measuring the extent of tumor. All patients underwent surgical procedures to evaluate tumor size. In 8 of 12 patients with tumor present at surgery there was complete agreement between the scans and surgical findings. There were two false negative sonograms and two false negative CAT scans, but in no patient were both scans falsely negative. Three other patients had negative scans; at laparotomy no residual disease was detected. Considering the greater cost and time requirement of CAT scans, our results suggest that ultrasonography is a more efficacious method of following abdominal and pelvic tumor size in patients on therapy. The CAT scan can be used to increase diagnostic confidence and may be the noninvasive procedure of choice for the diagnosis of intrauterine tumor masses.

AB - Fifteen patients with gynecologic malignancies were studied prospectively to determine the relative effectiveness of B-mode ultrasonography and abdominal computed tomography (CAT) scans in detecting and measuring the extent of tumor. All patients underwent surgical procedures to evaluate tumor size. In 8 of 12 patients with tumor present at surgery there was complete agreement between the scans and surgical findings. There were two false negative sonograms and two false negative CAT scans, but in no patient were both scans falsely negative. Three other patients had negative scans; at laparotomy no residual disease was detected. Considering the greater cost and time requirement of CAT scans, our results suggest that ultrasonography is a more efficacious method of following abdominal and pelvic tumor size in patients on therapy. The CAT scan can be used to increase diagnostic confidence and may be the noninvasive procedure of choice for the diagnosis of intrauterine tumor masses.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0018636013&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0018636013&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/0090-8258(79)90022-2

DO - 10.1016/0090-8258(79)90022-2

M3 - Article

C2 - 499923

AN - SCOPUS:0018636013

VL - 8

SP - 172

EP - 179

JO - Gynecologic Oncology

JF - Gynecologic Oncology

SN - 0090-8258

IS - 2

ER -