Diagnostic Accuracy of Ultrasonography in Detection of Molar Pregnancy Keeping Histopathology as Gold Standard

Article Sidebar

PDF
Published: Dec 30, 2025
DOI: https://doi.org/10.54079/jpmi.39.4.3769
Keywords:
Chorionic villi, Diagnostic imaging, Hydatidiform mole, First trimester pregnancy, Ultrasonography

Main Article Content

Mahnoor Amin
Radiology Department, Hayatabad Medical Complex, Peshawar
Ghazala Wahid
Radiology Department, Hayatabad Medical Complex, Peshawar
Rabeea Ihtesham
Radiology Department, Hayatabad Medical Complex, Peshawar
Fatima Nasir
Radiology Department, Hayatabad Medical Complex, Peshawar
Faryal Bashir
Radiology Department, Hayatabad Medical Complex, Peshawar
Mahrukh Abdullah
Radiology Department, Hayatabad Medical Complex, Peshawar

Abstract

Objective: To determine the diagnostic accuracy of ultrasonography in detecting molar pregnancy, using histopathology as the gold standard.


Methods: This cross-sectional validation study was conducted at the Department of Radiology, Hayatabad Medical Complex, Peshawar from 01 July 2024 to 01 January 2025. A total of 171 pregnant women in their first trimester presenting with vaginal bleeding were included. All participants underwent pelvic ultrasonography performed by an experienced radiologist with findings recorded based on predefined ultrasonographic criteria for molar pregnancy and confirmed by histopathology. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and overall diagnostic accuracy of ultrasonography were calculated.


Results: Molar pregnancy was detected on ultrasonography in 151 (88.3%) patients, whereas histopathology confirmed molar pregnancy in 161 (94.2%) cases. The sensitivity of ultrasonography in detecting molar pregnancy was 88.20%, specificity was 10%, PPV was 94.04%, and NPV was 5.00%. The overall diagnostic accuracy of ultrasonography was 83.63%, with a p-value of 0.863.


Conclusion: Ultrasonography demonstrated high sensitivity and PPV for detecting molar pregnancy but had low specificity and NPV. While it remains a valuable initial screening tool, reliance on histopathology for definitive diagnosis is necessary to avoid misclassification. Further regional studies are recommended to refine ultrasonographic criteria and improve diagnostic precision.

Article Details

How to Cite
1.
Amin M, Wahid G, Ihtesham R, Nasir F, Bashir F, Abdullah M. Diagnostic Accuracy of Ultrasonography in Detection of Molar Pregnancy Keeping Histopathology as Gold Standard. J Postgrad Med Inst [Internet]. 2025 Dec. 30 [cited 2026 Jan. 2];39(4). Available from: https://jpmi.org.pk/index.php/jpmi/article/view/3769
Issue
Vol. 39 No. 4 (2025): JPMI
Section
Original Article
Copyright (c) 2025 License

Work published in JPMI is licensed under a

Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 2.0 Generic License.

Creative Commons License

Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.

References

1. Mittal S, Menon S. Interstitial pregnancy mimicking an invasive hydatidiform mole. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2019;220(5):501.

2. Sarmadi S, Izadi-Mood N, Sanii S, Motevalli D. Inter-observer variability in the histologic criteria of diagnosis of hydatidiform moles. Malays J Pathol. 2019;41(1):15–24.

3. Ning F, Hou H, Morse AN, Lash GE. Understanding and management of gestational trophoblastic disease. F1000Res. 2019;8:F1000 Faculty Rev-152.

4. Braga A, Mora P, de Melo AC, Nogueira-Rodrigues A, Amim-Junior J, Rezende-Filho J, et al. Challenges in the diagnosis and treatment of gestational trophoblastic neoplasia worldwide. World J Clin Oncol. 2019;10(2):28–37.

5. Li X, Xu Y, Liu Y, Cheng X, Wang X, Lu W, et al. The management of hydatidiform mole with lung nodule: a retrospective analysis in 53 patients. J Gynecol Oncol. 2019;30(2):e18.

6. Yuk JS, Baek JC, Park JE, Jo HC, Park JK, Cho IA. Incidence of gestational trophoblastic disease in South Korea: a longitudinal, population-based study. PeerJ. 2019;7:e6490.

7. Berkowitz RS, Cramer DW, Bernstein MR, Cassells S, Driscoll SG, Goldstein DP. Risk factors for complete molar pregnancy from a case-control study. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1985 Aug 15;152(8):1016–1020. doi:10.1016/0002-9378(85)90550-2.

8. Nizam K, Haider G, Memon N, Haider A. Gestational trophoblastic disease: experience at Nawabshah Hospital. J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad. 2009 Jan-Mar;21(1):94–97.

9. Ross JA, Unipan A, Clarke J, Magee C, Johns J. Ultrasound diagnosis of molar pregnancy. Ultrasound. 2018 Aug;26(3):153–159. doi:10.1177/1742271X17748514.

10. Bakht K, Gul H, Nawab K. Diagnostic accuracy of ultrasound in early detection of molar pregnancy. Khyber Med Univ J. 2022;14(4):224–227.

11. Ross JA, Unipan A, Clarke J, Magee C, Johns J. Ultrasound diagnosis of molar pregnancy. Ultrasound. 2018;26(3):153–159.

12. Memtsa M, Johns J, Jurkovic D, Ross JA, Sebire NJ, Jauniaux E. Diagnosis and outcome of hydatidiform moles in missed miscarriage: a cohort study, systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2020;253:206–212.

13. Tidy J, Seckl M, Hancock BW, Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. Management of gestational trophoblastic disease. BJOG. 2021;128(3):e1–e27.

14. Fowler DJ, Lindsay I, Seckl MJ, Sebire NJ. Routine pre-evacuation ultrasound diagnosis of hydatidiform mole: experience of more than 1000 cases from a regional referral centre. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2006;27(1):56–60.