Diagnostic accuracy of contrast enhanced MRI pelvis in differentiating indeterminate adnexal lesions into benign and malignant with histopathological correlation
Keywords:Contrast-enhanced MRI, Ovarian tumor, Benign and malignant, Histopathology
Background: The objective of our study was to determine the diagnostic accuracy of contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging pelvis in differentiating indeterminate adnexal lesions into benign and malignant, while considering histopathological examinations as the gold standard.
Methods: A total 880 patients who underwent contrast enhanced MRI pelvis in our institute from January 2014 to June 2016 were prospectively analyzed.
Results: A total of 880 women were included in this study, of which 782 (88.8%) were younger than 50 years and 98 (11.1%) were older than 50 years. Mean patient age was 56.7 years and mean tumor size was 4.38 cm. There were 648 (73.60%) patients who had a tumor size of >4 cm, and 337 (38.29%) of these tumors were found to be malignant. Furthermore, tumors smaller than 4 cm in size were observed in 232 (26.36%) of patients, of which tumors in 225 (25.56%) patients were benign.
Conclusions: The diagnostic accuracy of contrast-enhanced MRI was found to be significantly high (79.65%) in differentiating indeterminate adnexal lesions into benign and malignant lesions.
Ferlay J, Bray F, Pisani P, Parkin DM. Available at: https://gco.iarc.fr/. Accessed on 20 February 2021.
Malik IA. A prospective study of clinic-pathological features of epithelial ovarian cancer in Pakistan. J Pak Med Assoc. 2002;52(4):155-8.
Horner MJ, Ries LAG, Krapcho M. SEER cancer statistics review. Available at: https://seer.cancer.gov/ csr/1975_2018/. Accessed on 20 February 2021.
Kim MY, Rha SE, Oh SN. MR Imaging findings of hydrosalpinx: a comprehensive review. Radio-graphics. 2009;29:495-507.
Pierce N, Narayanan P, Sahdev A. Ovarian lesions pose diagnostic dilemmas. Diagn Imaging Eur. 2008;24(3):14-8.
Spencer JA, Forstner R, Cunha TM. ESUR guidelines for MR imaging of the sonographically indeterminate adnexal mass: an algorithmic approach. Eur Radiol. 2010;20(1):25-35.
Bazot M, Daraï E, Nassar-Slaba J. Value of magnetic resonance imaging for the diagnosis of ovarian tumors: a review. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2008; 32(5):712-23.
Iyer VR, Lee SI. MRI, CT, and PET/CT for ovarian detection and adnexal lesion characterization. Am J Roentgenol. 2010;194:311-21.
Stevens SK, Hricak H, Stern JL. Ovarian lesions: detection and characterization with gadolinium enhanced MR imaging at 1.5 T. Radiology. 1991;181:481-8.
Ghossian MA, Buy JN, Ligneres C. Epithelial tumors of the ovary: comparison of MR and CT findings. Radiology. 1991;181:863-70.
Hircak H, Chen M, Coakley FV. Complex adnexal masses: detection and characterization with MR imaging-multivariate analysis. Radiology. 2000;214: 39-46.
Kinkel K, Lu Y, Mehdizade A. Indeterminate ovarian mass at US: incremental value of second imaging test for characterization-meta-analysis and Bayesian analysis. Radiology 2005; 236:85-94.
Adusumilli S, Hussain HK, Caolil EM. MRI of sonographically indeterminate adnexal masses. AJR. 2006;187:732-40.
Sohaib SA, Mills TD, Sahdev A. The role of magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasound in patients with adnexal masses. Clin Radiol. 2005;60:340-8.