The Authors retrospectively evaluate the advantages and limitations of CAT in 57 patients presenting suspected gynecologic pelvic masses. CAT showed great accuracy in identifying the presence or absence of the mass (only 3 false negatives and no false positive) whereas it diagnosed the nature of the lesion correctly only in 19 cases. In 41 cases the CAT provided clinically significant information adding to those of the gynecologic examination. Despite some limitations, CAT has proven to be a useful and accurate method to diagnose and evaluate suspected gynecologic masses before the surgical intervention.