European Radiology

, Volume 18, Issue 2, pp 384–389 | Cite as

Diagnostic accuracy of the apparent diffusion coefficient in differentiating benign from malignant uterine endometrial cavity lesions: initial results

  • Shinya Fujii
  • Eiji Matsusue
  • Junzo Kigawa
  • Shinya Sato
  • Yoshiko Kanasaki
  • Junko Nakanishi
  • Shuji Sugihara
  • Toshio Kaminou
  • Naoki Terakawa
  • Toshihide Ogawa
Urogenital

Abstract

Our purpose is to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) measurement in differentiating malignant from benign uterine endometrial cavity lesions. We retrospectively evaluated 25 uterine endometrial cavity lesions in 25 female patients: endometrial carcinoma (n = 11), carcinosarcoma (n = 2), submucosal leiomyoma (n = 8), and endometrial polyp (n = 4). Diffusion-weighted images were performed at 1.5 T with b factors of 0–1,000/mm2. The region of interest was defined within the tumor on T2-weighted EPI image and then manually copied to an ADC map. Thereby, the ADC value was obtained. We compared ADC values between malignant and benign lesions using Student’s t-test. The mean and standard deviation of ADC values (×10−3 mm2/s) were as follows: endometrial carcinoma, 0.98±0.21; carcinosarcoma, 0.97±0.02; submucosal leiomyoma, 1.37±0.28; and endometrial polyp, 1.58±0.45. The ADC values differed significantly between malignant (0.98±0.19) and benign lesions (1.44±0.34) (P < 0.01). We defined malignant tumors as cases with an ADC value less than 1.15 × 10−3 mm2/s for obtaining the highest accuracy. Sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were 84.6%, 100%, and 92%, respectively. ADC measurement can provide useful information in differentiating malignant from benign uterine endometrial cavity lesions.

Keywords

Magnetic resonance imaging Diffusion-weighted imaging Uterus Diagnostic accuracy Sensitivity Specificity 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to Eiji Yamashita, B.S., Naoki Iwata, B.S., Takuro Tanaka, B.S., and Hiroki Katayama, B.S., for their technical support in obtaining the high-quality MR images used in this study.

References

  1. 1.
    Guo Y, Cai YQ, Cai ZL, Gao YG, An NY, Ma L, Mahankali S, Gao JH (2002) Differentiation of clinically benign and malignant breast lesions using diffusion-weighted imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging 16:172–178PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Woodhams R, Matsunaga K, Kan S, Hata H, Ozaki M, Iwabuchi K, Kuranami M, Watanabe M, Hayakawa K (2005) ADC mapping of benign and malignant breast tumors. Magn Reson Med Sci 4:35–42PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Rubesova E, Grell AS, De Maertelaer V, Metens T, Chao SL, Lemort M (2006) Quantitative diffusion imaging in breast cancer: a clinical prospective study. J Magn Reson Imaging 24:319–324PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Nasu K, Kuroki Y, Nawano S, Kuroki S, Tsukamoto T, Yamamoto S, Motoori K, Ueda T (2006) Hepatic metastases: diffusion-weighted sensitivity-encoding versus SPIO-enhanced MR imaging. Radiology 239:122–130PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cova M, Squillaci E, Stacul F, Manenti G, Gava S, Simonetti G, Pozzi-Mucelli R (2004) Diffusion-weighted MRI in the evaluation of renal lesions: preliminary results. Br J Radiol 77:851–857PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Thoeny HC, Keyzer FD, Oyen RH, Peeters RR (2005) Diffusion-weighted MR imaging of kidneys in healthy volunteers and patients with parenchymal diseases: initial experience. Radiology 235:911–917PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ichikawa T, Erturk SM, Motosugi U, Sou H, Iino H, Araki T, Fujii H (2006) High-B-value diffusion-weighted MRI in colorectal cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol 187:181–184PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sato C, Naganawa S, Nakamura T, Kumada H, Miura S, Takizawa O, Ishigaki T (2005) Differentiation of non-cancerous tissue and cancer lesions by apparent diffusion coefficient values in transition and peripheral zones of the prostate. J Magn Reson Imaging 21:258–262PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Matsuki M, Inada Y, Tatsugami F, Tanikake M, Narabayashi I, Katsuoka Y (2007) Diffusion-weighted MR imaging for urinary bladder carcinoma: initial results. Eur Radiol 17:201–204PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Naganawa S, Sato C, Kumada H, Ishigaki T, Miura S, Takizawa O (2005) Apparent diffusion coefficient in cervical cancer of the uterus: comparison with the normal uterine cervix. Eur Radiol 15:71–78PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Thoeny HC, De Keyzer F (2007) Extracranial applications of diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging. Eur Radiol 17:1385–1393PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Szafer A, Zhong J, Anderson AW, Gore JC (1995) Diffusion-weighted imaging in tissues: theoretical models. NMR Biomed 8:289–296PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sugahara T, Korogi Y, Kochi M, Ikushima I, Shigematu Y, Hirai T, Okuda T, Liang L, Ge Y, Komohara Y, Ushio Y, Takahashi M (1999) Usefulness of diffusion-weighted MRI with echo-planar technique in the evaluation of cellularity in gliomas. J Magn Reson Imaging 9:53–60PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gauvain KM, McKinstry RC, Mukherjee P, Perry A, Neil JJ, Kaufman BA, Hayashi RJ (2001) Evaluating pediatric brain tumor cellularity with diffusion-tensor imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol 177:449–454PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Guo AC, Cummings TJ, Dash RC, Provenzale JM (2002) Lymphomas and high-grade astrocytomas: comparison of water diffusibility and histologic characteristics. Radiology 224:177–183PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rumboldt Z, Camacho DL, Lake D, Welsh CT, Castillo M (2006) Apparent diffusion coefficients for differentiation of cerebellar tumors in children. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 27:1362–1369PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hayashida Y, Hirai T, Morishita S, Kitajima M, Murakami R, Korogi Y, Makino K, Nakamura H, Ikushima I, Yamura M, Kochi M, Kuratsu JI, Yamashita Y (2006) Diffusion-weighted imaging of metastatic brain tumors: comparison with histologic type and tumor cellularity. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 27:1419–1425PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Takeuchi M, Matsuzaki K, Uehara H, Yoshida S, Nishitani H, Shimazu H (2005) Pathologies of the uterine endometrial cavity: usual and unusual manifestations and pitfalls on magnetic resonance imaging. Eur Radiol 15:2244–2255PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Imaoka I, Sugimura K, Masui T, Takehara Y, Ichijo K, Naito M (1999) Abnormal uterine cavity: differential diagnosis with MR imaging. Magn Reson Imaging 17:1445–1455PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ohguri T, Aoki T, Watanabe H, Nakamura K, Nakata H, Matsuura Y, Kashimura M (2002) MRI findings including gadolinium-enhanced dynamic studies of malignant, mixed mesodermal tumors of the uterus: differentiation from endometrial carcinomas. Eur Radiol 12:2737–2742PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Grasel RP, Outwater EK, Siegelman ES, Capuzzi D, Parker L, Hussain SM (2000) Endometrial polyps: MR imaging features and distinction from endometrial carcinoma. Radiology 214:47–52PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Park BK, Kim B, Park JM, Ryu JA, Kim MS, Bae DS, Ahn GH (2006) Differentiation of the various lesions causing an abnormality of the endometrial cavity using MR imaging: emphasis on enhancement patterns on dynamic studies and late contrast-enhanced T1-weighted images. Eur Radiol 16:1591–1598PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Moteki T, Horikoshi H, Endo K (2002) Relationship between apparent diffusion coefficient and signal intensity in endometrial and other pelvic cysts. Magn Reson Imaging 20:463–470PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Moteki T, Ishizaka H (2000) Diffusion-weighted EPI of cystic ovarian lesions: evaluation of cystic contents using apparent diffusion coefficients. J Magn Reson Imaging 1:1014–1019CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Nakayama T, Yoshimitsu K, Irie H, Aibe H, Tajima T, Nishie A, Asayama Y, Matake K, Kakihara D, Matsuura S, Nakano H, Honda H (2005) Diffusion-weighted echo-planar MR imaging and ADC mapping in the differential diagnosis of ovarian cystic masses: usefulness of detecting keratinoid substances in mature cystic teratomas. J Magn Reson Imaging 22:271–278PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Katayama M, Masui T, Kobayashi S, Ito T, Sakahara H, Nozaki A, Kabasawa H (2002) Diffusion-weighted echo planar imaging of ovarian tumors: is it useful to measure apparent diffusion coefficients? J Comput Assist Tomogr 26:250–256PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Shimada K, Ohashi I, Kasahara I, Watanabe H, Ohta S, Miyasaka N, Itoh E, Shibuya H (2004) Differentiation between completely hyalinized uterine leiomyomas and ordinary leiomyomas: three-phase dynamic magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) vs. diffusion-weighted MRI with very small b-factors. J Magn Reson Imaging 20:97–104PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Liapi E, Kamel IR, Bluemke DA, Jacobs MA, Kim HS (2005) Assessment of response of uterine fibroids and myometrium to embolization using diffusion-weighted echoplanar MR imaging. J Comput Assist Tomogr 29:83–86PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Jacobs MA, Herskovits EH, Kim HS (2005) Uterine fibroids: diffusion-weighted MR imaging for monitoring therapy with focused ultrasound surgery-preliminary study. Radiology 236:196–203PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Takahara T, Imai Y, Yamashita T, Yasuda S, Nasu S, Van Cauteren M (2004) Diffusion weighted whole body imaging with background body signal suppression (DWIBS): technical improvement using free breathing, STIR and high resolution 3D display. Radiat Med 22:275–282PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Young RH, Scully RE (2002) Sex cord-stromal, steroid cell, and other ovarian tumor. In: Kurman RJ (ed) Blaustein’s pathology of the female genital tract, 5th edn. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 907–925Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Tamai K, Koyama T, Saga T, Umeoka S, Nhkami Y, Fujii S, Togashi K (2007) Diffusion-weighted MR imaging of uterine endometrial cancer. J Magn Reson Imaging 26:682–687PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Silverberg SG, Kurman RJ (2002) Tumors of the uterine corpus and gestational trophoblastic disease. In: Rosai J, Aovin L (eds) Atlas of tumor pathology. Vol 3. Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, Washington, DC, pp 113–151Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Ueda H, Togashi K, Konishi I, Kataoka ML, Koyama T, Fujiwara T, Kobayashi H, Fujii S, Konishi J (1999) Unusual appearances of uterine leiomyomas: MR imaging findings and their histopathologic backgrounds. Radiographics 19:S131–S145PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© European Society of Radiology 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Shinya Fujii
    • 1
  • Eiji Matsusue
    • 1
  • Junzo Kigawa
    • 2
  • Shinya Sato
    • 2
  • Yoshiko Kanasaki
    • 1
  • Junko Nakanishi
    • 1
  • Shuji Sugihara
    • 1
  • Toshio Kaminou
    • 1
  • Naoki Terakawa
    • 2
  • Toshihide Ogawa
    • 1
  1. 1.Division of Radiology, Department of Pathophysiological and Therapeutic Science, Faculty of MedicineTottori UniversityYonagoJapan
  2. 2.Division of Reproductive-Perinatal Medicine and Gynecological Oncology, Department of Surgery, Faculty of MedicineTottori UniversityYonagoJapan

Personalised recommendations