European Radiology

, Volume 22, Issue 4, pp 738–745 | Cite as

Quantitative dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging analysis of complex adnexal masses: a preliminary study

  • Isabelle Thomassin-NaggaraEmail author
  • Daniel Balvay
  • Emilie Aubert
  • Emile Daraï
  • Roman Rouzier
  • Charles A. Cuenod
  • Marc Bazot



To evaluate the ability of quantitative dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (DCE-MRI) to differentiate malignant from benign adnexal tumours.


Fifty-six women with 38 malignant and 18 benign tumours underwent MR imaging before surgery for complex adnexal masses. Microvascular parameters were extracted from high temporal resolution DCE-MRI series, using a pharmacokinetic model in the solid tissue of adnexal tumours. These parameters were tissue blood flow (FT), blood volume fraction (Vb), permeability-surface area product (PS), interstitial volume fraction (Ve), lag time (Dt) and area under the enhancing curve (rAUC). Area under the receiver operating curve (AUROC) was calculated as a descriptive tool to assess the overall discrimination of parameters.


Malignant tumours displayed higher FT, Vb, rAUC and lower Ve than benign tumours (P < 0.0001, P = 0.0006, P = 0.04 and P = 0.0002, respectively). FT was the most relevant factor for discriminating malignant from benign tumours (AUROC = 0.86). Primary ovarian invasive tumours displayed higher FT and shorter Dt than borderline tumours. Malignant adnexal tumours with associated peritoneal carcinomatosis at surgery displayed a shorter Dt than those without peritoneal carcinomatosis at surgery (P = 0.01).


Quantitative DCE-MRI is a feasible and accurate technique to differentiate malignant from benign adnexal tumours and could potentially help oncologists with management decisions.

Key Points

Quantitative DCE MR imaging allows accurate differentiation between malignant and benign tumours

Quantitative DCE MRI may help predict peritoneal carcinomatosis associated with ovarian tumors

Quantitative DCE MRI helps distinguish between invasive and borderline primary ovarian tumours


Perfusion MRI Complex adnexal masses Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI Ovarian tumour 

Supplementary material

330_2011_2329_MOESM1_ESM.doc (54 kb)
ESM 1 (DOC 54 kb)


  1. 1.
    Padhani AR, Dzik-Jurasz A (2004) Perfusion MR imaging of extracranial tumor angiogenesis. Top Magn Reson Imaging 15:41–57PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    O’Connor JP, Jackson A, Parker GJ et al (2007) DCE-MRI biomarkers in the clinical evaluation of antiangiogenic and vascular disrupting agents. Br J Cancer 96:189–195PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Van Vierzen PB, Massuger LF, Ruys SH et al (1998) Borderline ovarian malignancy: ultrasound and fast dynamic MR findings. Eur J Radiol 28:136–142PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sohaib SA, Sahdev A, Van Trappen P et al (2003) Characterization of adnexal mass lesions on MR imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol 180:1297–1304PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Thomassin-Naggara I, Toussaint I, Perrot N et al (2011) Characterization of complex adnexal masses: value of adding perfusion- and diffusion-weighted MR imaging to conventional MR imaging. Radiology 258:793–803PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Thomassin-Naggara I, Darai E, Cuenod CA et al (2008) Dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging: a useful tool for characterizing ovarian epithelial tumors. J Magn Reson Imaging 28:111–120PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Brix G, Semmler W, Port R et al (1991) Pharmacokinetic parameters in CNS Gd-DTPA enhanced MR imaging. J Comput Assist Tomogr 15:621–628PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Tofts PS, Kermode AG (1991) Measurement of the blood-brain barrier permeability and leakage space using dynamic MR imaging. 1. Fundamental concepts. Magn Reson Med 17:357–367PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Larsson HB, Stubgaard M, Sondergaard L et al (1994) In vivo quantification of the unidirectional influx constant for Gd-DTPA diffusion across the myocardial capillaries with MR imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging 4:433–440PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Timmerman D, Valentin L, Bourne TH et al (2000) Terms, definitions and measurements to describe the sonographic features of adnexal tumors: a consensus opinion from the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis (IOTA) Group. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 16:500–505PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Thomassin-Naggara I, Balvay D, Cuenod CA et al (2010) Dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging to assess physiologic variations of myometrial perfusion. Eur Radiol 20:984–994PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cenic A, Nabavi DG, Craen RA et al (2000) A CT method to measure hemodynamics in brain tumors: validation and application of cerebral blood flow maps. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 21:462–470PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cenic A, Nabavi DG, Craen RA et al (1999) Dynamic CT measurement of cerebral blood flow: a validation study. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 20:63–73PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Brix G, Bahner ML, Hoffmann U et al (1999) Regional blood flow, capillary permeability, and compartmental volumes: measurement with dynamic CT—initial experience. Radiology 210:269–276PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Pradel C, Siauve N, Bruneteau G et al (2003) Reduced capillary perfusion and permeability in human tumour xenografts treated with the VEGF signalling inhibitor ZD4190: an in vivo assessment using dynamic MR imaging and macromolecular contrast media. Magn Reson Imaging 21:845–851PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    De Bazelaire C, Siauve N, Fournier L et al (2005) Comprehensive model for simultaneous MRI determination of perfusion and permeability using a blood-pool agent in rats rhabdomyosarcoma. Eur Radiol 15:2497–2505PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Balvay D, Tropres I, Billet R et al (2009) Mapping the zonal organization of tumor perfusion and permeability in a rat glioma model by using dynamic contrast-enhanced synchrotron radiation CT. Radiology 250:692–702PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Balvay D, Frouin F, Calmon G et al (2005) New criteria for assessing fit quality in dynamic contrast-enhanced T1-weighted MRI for perfusion and permeability imaging. Magn Reson Med 54:868–877PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Fleischer AC, Rodgers WH, Kepple DM et al (1993) Color Doppler sonography of ovarian masses: a multiparameter analysis. J Ultrasound Med 12:41–48PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Abu-Jawdeh GM, Faix JD, Niloff J et al (1996) Strong expression of vascular permeability factor (vascular endothelial growth factor) and its receptors in ovarian borderline and malignant neoplasms. Lab Invest 74:1105–1115PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Yamamoto S, Konishi I, Mandai M et al (1997) Expression of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) in epithelial ovarian neoplasms: correlation with clinicopathology and patient survival, and analysis of serum VEGF levels. Br J Cancer 76:1221–1227PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Chen H, Ye D, Xie X et al (2004) VEGF, VEGFRs expressions and activated STATs in ovarian epithelial carcinoma. Gynecol Oncol 94:630–635PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Thomassin-Naggara I, Bazot M, Darai E et al (2008) Epithelial ovarian tumors: value of dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging and correlation with tumor angiogenesis. Radiology 248:148–159PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Bazot M, Nassar-Slaba J, Thomassin-Naggara I et al (2006) MR imaging compared with intraoperative frozen-section examination for the diagnosis of adnexal tumors; correlation with final histology. Eur Radiol 16:2687–2699PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Thomassin-Naggara I, Darai E, Cuenod CA et al (2009) Contribution of diffusion-weighted MR imaging for predicting benignity of complex adnexal masses. Eur Radiol 19:1544–1552PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Bakir B, Bakan S, Tunaci M et al (2010) Diffusion-weighted imaging of solid or predominantly solid gynaecological adnexial masses: is it useful in the differential diagnosis? Br J Radiol 84:600–611PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Takeuchi M, Matsuzaki K, Nishitani H (2010) Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging of ovarian tumors: differentiation of benign and malignant solid components of ovarian masses. J Comput Assist Tomogr 34:173–176PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Fujii S, Matsusue E, Kanasaki Y et al (2008) Detection of peritoneal dissemination in gynecological malignancy: evaluation by diffusion-weighted MR imaging. Eur Radiol 18:18–23PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Satoh Y, Ichikawa T, Motosugi U et al (2011) Diagnosis of peritoneal dissemination: comparison of 18F-FDG PET/CT, diffusion-weighted MRI, and contrast-enhanced MDCT. AJR Am J Roentgenol 196:447–453PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Vergote I, Trope CG, Amant F et al (2010) Neoadjuvant chemotherapy or primary surgery in stage IIIC or IV ovarian cancer. N Engl J Med 363:943–953PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Barentsz JO, Berger-Hartog O, Witjes JA et al (1998) Evaluation of chemotherapy in advanced urinary bladder cancer with fast dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging. Radiology 207:791–797PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Padhani AR (2002) Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI in clinical oncology: current status and future directions. J Magn Reson Imaging 16:407–422PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Padhani AR, Hayes C, Assersohn L et al (2006) Prediction of clinicopathologic response of breast cancer to primary chemotherapy at contrast-enhanced MR imaging: initial clinical results. Radiology 239:361–374PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Padhani AR, Hayes C, Landau S et al (2002) Reproducibility of quantitative dynamic MRI of normal human tissues. NMR Biomed 15:143–153PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Mitchell CL, O’Connor JP, Jackson A et al (2010) Identification of early predictive imaging biomarkers and their relationship to serological angiogenic markers in patients with ovarian cancer with residual disease following cytotoxic therapy. Ann Oncol 21:1982–1989PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Padhani AR, Husband JE (2001) Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI studies in oncology with an emphasis on quantification, validation and human studies. Clin Radiol 56:607–620PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© European Society of Radiology 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Isabelle Thomassin-Naggara
    • 1
    • 3
    • 5
    Email author
  • Daniel Balvay
    • 3
  • Emilie Aubert
    • 1
  • Emile Daraï
    • 2
  • Roman Rouzier
    • 2
  • Charles A. Cuenod
    • 3
    • 4
  • Marc Bazot
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of RadiologyHôpital Tenon, Assistance Publique–Hôpitaux de ParisParisFrance
  2. 2.Department of Gynaecology-ObstetricsHôpital Tenon, Assistance Publique–Hôpitaux de ParisParisFrance
  3. 3.Laboratoire de recherche en imagerie - UMR 970 INSERM - Université Rene DescartesParisFrance
  4. 4.Department of RadiologyHôpital Européen Georges Pompidou (HEGP)ParisFrance
  5. 5.Service de Radiologie, Hôpital TenonParisFrance

Personalised recommendations