Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Microcystic pattern and shadowing are independent predictors of ovarian borderline tumors and cystadenofibromas in ultrasound

  • Ultrasound
  • Published:
European Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objectives

To determine the sonographic characteristics of borderline tumors (BoTs) and cystadenofibromas (CAFs).

Methods

Preoperative sonograms from consecutive patients who had at least one primary epithelial tumor in the adnexa were retrospectively collected. All tumors were described using the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis terminology. Ultrasound variables were tested using multinomial logistic regression after univariate analysis.

Results

A total of 650 patients were included in this study. Of these, 110 had a CAF, 128 had a BoT, 249 had a cystadenoma (CAD), and 163 had a cystadenocarcinoma (CAC). Nearly half of CAFs and more than half of BoTs and CACs appeared to be unilocular and multilocular solid on the ultrasound images, while CADs were predominantly uni- or multilocular (p < 0.001). Overall, shadowing was identified in 82/650 cases. Sixty-five of 110 (59.1%) CAFs exhibited an acoustic shadow, compared with only 4/249 (1.6%) in CADs, 7/128 (5.5%) in BoTs, and 6/163 (3.7%) in CACs (p < 0.001). Furthermore, 112/650 cases demonstrated microcystic pattern (MCP). Sixty-eight of 128 (53.1%) BoTs exhibited MCP, compared with only 5/249 (2.0%) in CADs, 19/163 (11.7%) in CACs, and 20/110 (18.2%) in CAFs (p < 0.001). Logistic regression analysis revealed that shadowing is an independent predictor of CAFs, while MCP is an independent predictor of BoTs.

Conclusions

Sonographic findings for CAFs and BoTs were complex and partly overlapped with those for CACs. However, proper recognition and utilization of shadowing or MCP may help to correctly discriminate CAFs and BoTs.

Key Points

• Sonographic findings for borderline tumors and cystadenofibromas are complex and mimic malignancy.

• Microcystic pattern and shadowing are independent predictors of borderline tumors and cystadenofibromas respectively.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

ADNEX:

Assessment of Different NEoplasias in the adneXa

BoTs:

Borderline tumors

CACs:

Cystadenocarcinomas

CADs:

Cystadenomas

CAFs:

Cystadenofibromas

FOTAG:

Fujian Ovarian Tumor Analysis Group

MCP:

Microcystic pattern

OR:

Odds ratios

References

  1. Kurman RJ, Carcangiu ML, Herrington CS, Young RH (2014) WHO classification of tumours of female reproductive organs, 4rd edn. IARC, Lyon

    Google Scholar 

  2. Fischerova D, Zikan M, Dundr P, Cibula D (2012) Diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up of borderline ovarian tumors. Oncologist 17:1515–1533

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Cho SM, Byun JY, Rha SE et al (2004) CT and MRI findings of cystadenofibromas of the ovary. Eur Radiol 14:798–804

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Shimizu S, Okano H, Ishitani K, Nomura H, Nishikawa T, Ohta H (2009) Ovarian cystadenofibroma with solid nodular components masqueraded as ovarian cancer. Arch Gynecol Obstet 279:709–711

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Lee DH (2014) A case of mucinous cystadenofibroma of the ovary. Case Rep Obstet Gynecol 2014:1–4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Valentin L, Ameye L, Savelli L et al (2011) Adnexal masses difficult to classify as benign or malignant using subjective assessment of gray-scale and Doppler ultrasound findings: logistic regression models do not help. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 38:456–465

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Yazbek J, Raju KS, Ben-Nagi J, Holland T, Hillaby K, Jurkovic D (2007) Accuracy of ultrasound subjective ‘pattern recognition’ for the diagnosis of borderline ovarian tumors. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 29:489–495

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Granberg S, Wikland M, Jansson I (1989) Macroscopic characterization of ovarian tumors and relation to the histological diagnosis: criteria to be used for ultrasound evaluation. Gynecol Oncol 35:139–144

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Smith-Bindman R, Poder L, Johnson E, Miglioretti DL (2019) Risk of malignant ovarian cancer based on ultrasonography findings in a large unselected population. JAMA Intern Med 179:71–77

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Eskander RN, Randall LM, Berman ML, Tewari KS, Disaia PJ, Bristow RE (2011) Fertility preserving options in patients with gynecologic malignancies. Am J Obstet Gynecol 205:103–110

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Timmerman D, Valentin L, Bourne TH, Collins WP, Verrelst H, Vergote I (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 16:500–505

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Timor-Tritsch IE, Foley CE, Brandon C et al (2019) A new sonographic marker of borderline ovarian tumors: the microcystic pattern of papillary projections and solid components. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 54:395–402

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Valentin L, Ameye L, Testa A et al (2006) Ultrasound characteristics of different types of adnexal malignancies. Gynecol Oncol 102:41–48

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Fruscella E, Testa AC, Ferrandina G et al (2005) Ultrasound features of different histopathological subtypes of borderline ovarian tumors. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 26:644–650

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Timmerman D, Testa AC, Bourne T et al (2005) Logistic regression model to distinguish between the benign and malignant adnexal mass before surgery: a multicenter study by the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis Group. J Clin Oncol 23:8794–8801

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Sayasneh A, Kaijser J, Preisler J et al (2013) Multicenter prospective external validation of the diagnostic performance of IOTA simple descriptors and rules to characterize ovarian masses. Gynecol Oncol 130:140–146

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Kaijser J, Van Gorp T, Van Hoorde K et al (2013) A comparison between an ultrasound based prediction model (LR2) and the risk of ovarian malignancy algorithm (ROMA) to assess the risk of malignancy in women with an adnexal mass. Gynecol Oncol 129:377–383

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Van Calster B, Van Hoorde K, Valentin L et al (2014) Evaluating the risk of ovarian cancer before surgery using the ADNEX model to differentiate between benign, borderline, early and advanced stage invasive, and secondary metastatic tumours: prospective multicentre diagnostic study. BMJ 349:g5920

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Takeuchi M, Matsuzaki K, Harada M (2013) Ovarian adenofibromas and cystadenofibromas: magnetic resonance imaging findings including diffusion-weighted imaging. Acta Radiol 54:231–236

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Alcázar JL, Errasti T, Mínguez JA, Galán MJ, García-Manero M, Ceamanos C (2001) Sonographic features of ovarian cystadenofibromas: spectrum of findings. J Ultrasound Med 20:915–919

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Tang YZ, Liyanage S, Narayanan P et al (2013) The MRI features of histologically proven ovarian cystadenofibromas-an assessment of the morphological and enhancement patterns. Eur Radiol 23:48–56

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Valentin L, Ameye L, Jurkovic D et al (2006) Which extrauterine pelvic masses are difficult to correctly classify as benign or malignant on the basis of ultrasound findings and is there a way of making a correct diagnosis? Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 27:438–444

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Goldstein SR, Timor-Tritsch I, Monda S, Popliolek D, Monteagudo A (2009) Ultrasound appearance of cystadenofibroma: can we reduce surgical intervention? Abstract OC25.03. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 34(S1):49

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Goldstein SR, Timor-Tritsch IE, Monteagudo A, Monda S, Popiolek D (2015) Cystadenofibromas: can transvaginal ultrasound appearance reduce some surgical interventions? J Clin Ultrasound 43:393–396

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Timor-Tritsch IE, Yoon E, Monteagudo A et al (2019) Ultrasound and histopathologic correlation of ovarian cystadenofibromas: diagnostic value of the “shadow sign”. J Ultrasound Med 38:2973–2978

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Sayasneh A, Ekechi C, Ferrara L et al (2015) The characteristic ultrasound features of specific types of ovarian pathology (review). Int J Oncol 46:445–458

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Virgilio BA, De Blasis I, Sladkevicius P et al (2019) Imaging of gynecological disease (16): clinical and ultrasound characteristics of serous cystadenofibromas in the adnexa. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 54:823–830

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Landolfo C, Valentin L, Franchi D et al (2018) Differences in ultrasound features of papillations in unilocular solid adnexal cysts a retrospective international multicenter study. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 52(2):269–278

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Professor Jibin Liu of the School of Medicine of Jefferson University in the USA made valuable suggestions for this study.

Funding

This study is sponsored by Key Clinical Specialty Discipline Construction Program of Fujian, P.R.C., and the Collaborative Innovation Center for Maternal and Infant Health Service Application Technology, Quanzhou Medical College.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Guorong Lyu.

Ethics declarations

Guarantor

The scientific guarantor of this publication is Guorong Lyu.

Conflict of interest

The authors of this manuscript declare no relationships with any companies, whose products or services may be related to the subject matter of the article.

Statistics and biometry

We thank Dr. Zhenhua Wang of the Second Affiliated Hospital of Fujian Medical University, for providing statistical analysis guidance.

Informed consent

Since this was a retrospective study, written informed consent was not needed.

Ethical approval

Institutional Review Board approval was obtained.

Methodology

• Retrospective

• Observational

• Multicenter study

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Zheng, X., Lyu, G., Gan, Y. et al. Microcystic pattern and shadowing are independent predictors of ovarian borderline tumors and cystadenofibromas in ultrasound. Eur Radiol 31, 45–54 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-020-07113-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-020-07113-z

Keywords

Navigation