Table 3

Comparison of various imaging modalities regarding their diagnostic performance in differentiating benign and malignant omental masses

AuthorNImaging modalityParameter predictor of malignancySensitivity (%)Specificity
(%)
PPV (%)NPV (%)P value
Salman et al*6100B-mode USomental thickness of ≥19.589.384.187.786.0<0.001
Trenker et al844CEUSInhomogeneous enhancement0.05
Inan et al1924Colour Doppler USRI0.08
Perez et al34163†CTInfiltrative morphology80.566.797.616.7<0.001
Doshi et al‡, 3519MRIHyperintensity on high b-value diffusion-weighted imaging87.510010091.7<0.001
Zhang et al5118Strain elastographyStrain ratio§ >2.680.376.683.872.0<0.01
Elasticity score¶ >393.093.695.789.8<0.01
Present study106ARFI-elastographyMean velocity >1.97 m/s76.985.489.370.0<0.001
  • *This study involved 100 patients with ascites (56 peritoneal carcinomatosis and 44 tuberculous peritonitis).

  • †This study included 154 malignant and nine benign omental lesions.

  • ‡The study included 11 benign and eight malignant omental lesions.

  • §Using abdominal wall fat as a reference.

  • ¶Score based on evaluation of colour topography (1: uniformly green, 2: green and blue but predominantly green, 3: blue and green but predominantly blue, 4: uniformly blue).

  • ARFI, acoustic radiation force impulse; CEUS, contrast enhanced US; NPV, negative predictive value; PPV, positive predictive value; RI, Resistive Index; US, ultrasound.