{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.012647554806070826, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0016863406408094434, 'mean_word_length': 5.521978021978022, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Evaluation of gynecologic pelvic masses by ultrasound and computed tomography.

In a prospective study, computed tomography (CT) and ultrasound scanning of the pelvis were performed for 50 patients having clinically suspected pelvic masses or recurrence of known pelvic malignancy. On the basis of these scan images, an attempt was made to characterize pelvic masses on the basis of benign or malignant character and organ of origin. The presence of recurrent tumor in patients previously treated for pelvic malignancy was assessed, and the presence of abdominal metastatic disease was evaluated for all patients. CT was successful in a higher proportion of cases in detecting abdominal metastatic disease due to bowel gas's degrading the abdominal ultrasound scan images. In characterizing suspected pelvic masses and evaluating the presence of recurrent tumor, both CT and ultrasound scanning were accurate in approximately two-thirds of cases. The significant proportion of incorrect results indicates that neither technique is sufficiently accurate to preclude pathologic diagnosis of a pelvic mass or to substitute for exploratory surgery to assess recurrence of pelvic malignancy.