Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Role of Diffusion-Weighted Magnetic Resonance Imaging in the Evaluation of Ovarian Tumours

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Indian Journal of Gynecologic Oncology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Characterization of adnexal masses calls for multidisciplinary involvement. Though a definitive pathological diagnosis mandates surgical intervention, a pre-interventional near-accurate characterization helps in treatment planning. Imaging is a mainstay in this regard.

Aim

This study aimed at analysing ADC values of ovarian lesions observed on a DW–MRI, with an intent to arrive at a probable demarcating value differentiating benign and malignant tumours. The significance of contrast enhancement pattern of lesions was also analysed.

Materials and Methods

All patients with histopathologically proven ovarian tumour (benign and malignant) who had pelvic MRI with DW sequence with b value of 0 and 1000 were included.

Results

Total patients were 62. Mean age was 44 ± 16.8 years. 33.88% were malignant. DWI and ADC values were plotted in 48 of the 62. Diffusion restriction was seen in 81.25% of malignant and 56.25% of benign lesions. The sensitivity and specificity of DWI in differentiating malignancies were 81.25% and 43.75%, respectively. The probable cut-off value of ADC differentiating a malignant and a benign lesion was found to be ≥ 1.13 × 10−3 mm2/s, statistically, using the receiver operating characteristics. 35.48% had early contrast enhancement, and 64.51% delayed enhancement.

Conclusion

DWI has an optimal sensitivity of 81.25% and a low specificity of 43.75% in differentiating malignant from benign lesions. In our study, we found an ADC cut-off of ≥ 1.13 × 10−3 mm2/s, to differentiate between malignant and benign tumours with a sensitivity of 84.4% and specificity of 87.5%. In differentiating between benign and malignant lesions, early enhancement on dynamic contrast study had a good sensitivity.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Oktem O, Oktay K. The ovary anatomy and function throughout human life. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2008;1127(1):1–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Shahrzad Ehdaivand. WHO classification of ovarian neoplasms. [Internet]. PathologyOutlines.com. 2019 [cited 2019 Mar 8]. http://www.pathologyoutlines.com/topic/ovarytumorwhoclassif.html.

  3. Stewart SL. Ovarian cancer incidence: current and comprehensive statistics division of cancer prevention and control. In: Farghaly DS, editor. Ovarian cancer—clinical and therapeutic perspectives. 1st ed ed. Rijeka: InTech; 2012. p. 1–15.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Noone A, Howlader N, Krapcho M, Miller D, Brest A, Yu M, et al. SEER cancer statistics review, 1975–2015. Bethesda: National Cancer Institute; 2018.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Sohaib S, Sahdev A, Van Trappen P, Jacobs I, Reznek R. Characterization of adnexal mass lesions on MR imaging. Am J Roentgenol. 2003;180(5):1297–304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Zhang P, Cui Y, Li W, Ren G, Chu C, Wu X. Diagnostic accuracy of diffusion-weighted imaging with conventional MR imaging for differentiating complex solid and cystic ovarian tumors at 1.5T. World J Surg Oncol. 2012;10(1):237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Lemeshow S, Hosmer DW, Klar J, Lwanga SK. Adequacy of sample size in health studies. 1st ed. West Sussex: Wiley; 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Foti PV, Attina G, Spadola S, Caltabiano R, Farina R, Palmucci S, et al. MR imaging of ovarian masses: classification and differential diagnosis. Insights Imaging. 2016;7(1):21–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Menon U, Hallett R, Ryan A, Burnell M. Sensitivity and specificity of multimodal and ultrasound screening for ovarian cancer, and stage distribution of detected cancers: results of the prevalence screen of the UK Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening (UKCTOCS). Lancet Oncol. 2009;10(April):327–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Iyer VR, Lee SI. MRI, CT, and PET/CT for ovarian cancer detection and adnexal lesion characterization. Am J Roentgenol. 2010;194(2):311–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Kinkel K, Lu Y, Mehdizade A, Pelte M-F, Hricak H. Indeterminate ovarian mass at US: incremental value of second imaging test for characterization—meta-analysis and bayesian analysis. Radiology. 2005;236:85–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Adusumilli S, Hussain HK, Caoili EM, Weadock WJ, Murray JP, Johnson TD, et al. MRI of sonographically indeterminate adnexal masses. Am J Roentgenol. 2006;187(3):732–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Komatsu T, Konishi I, Mandai M, Togash K, Kawakami S, Konishi J, et al. Adnexal masses: transvaginal US and gadolinium-enhanced MR imaging assessment of intratumoral structure. Radiology. 1996;198(1):109–15.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Yuan X, Guo L, Du W, Mo F, Liu M. Diagnostic accuracy of DWI in patients with ovarian cancer. Medicine. 2017;96(19):1–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Bakir B, Bakan S, Tunaci M, Bakir VL, Iyibozkurt AC, Berkman S, et al. Diffusion-weighted imaging of solid or predominantly solid gynaecological adnexial masses: Is it useful in the differential diagnosis? Br J Radiol. 2011;84(1003):600–11.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Thomassin-Naggara I, Daraï E, Cuenod C, Fournier L, Toussaint I, Marsault C, et al. Contribution of diffusion-weighted MR imaging for predicting benignity of complex adnexal masses. Eur Radiol. 2009;19(6):1544–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Thomassin-Naggara I, Toussaint I, Perrot N. Characterization of complex adnexal masses: value of adding perfusion- and diffusion-weighted MR imaging to conventional MR imaging. Radiology. 2011;258(3):793–803.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Takeuchi M, Matsuzaki K, Nishitani H. Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging of ovarian tumors: differentiation of benign and malignant solid components of ovarian masses. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2010;34(2):173–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Kovač JD, Terzić M, Mirković M, Banko B, Đikić-Rom A, Maksimović R. Endometrioid adenocarcinoma of the ovary: MRI findings with emphasis on diffusion-weighted imaging for the differentiation of ovarian tumors. Acta Radiol. 2016;57(6):758–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Katayama M, Masui T, Kobayashi S, Ito T, Sakahara H, Nozaki A, et al. Diffusion-weighted echo planar imaging of ovarian tumors: is it useful to measure apparent diffusion coefficients? J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2002;26(2):250–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Cappabianca S, Iaselli F, Reginelli A, D’Andrea A, Urraro F, Grassi R, et al. Value of diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging in the characterization of complex adnexal masses. Tumori. 2013;99(2):210–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Lee NK, Kim S, Kim KH, Suh DS, Kim TU, Han GJ, et al. Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging in the differentiation of endometriomas from hemorrhagic cysts in the ovary. Acta Radiol. 2016;57(8):998–1005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Kim HJ, Lee SY, Shin YR, Park CS, Kim K. The value of diffusion-weighted imaging in the differential diagnosis of ovarian lesions: a meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2016;11(2):1–13.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Motekia T, Horikoshic H, Endo K. Relationship between apparent diffusion coefficient and signal intensity in endometrial and other pelvic cysts. Magn Reson Imaging. 2002;20(6):463–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Mastrolia SA, Alvarez-Arguelles H, Carballo J, Amaya F, de la Torre J. Steroid cell tumor (NOS) of the ovary associated to high levels of CA-125. Gynecol Surg. 2011;8(2):231–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

The authors have not received any funding either from the institution or from an external source.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiodiagnosis, Amrita Institute of Medical Sciences, Amrita University, Kochi, 682041, India

    Sandya C. Jayasankaran, Prabash Prabhakaran & Resmi Sekhar

  2. Department of Oncology, Sevana Hospital and Research Centre, Pattambi, Palakkad District, Kerala, 679303, India

    Prameela G. Chelakkot

Authors
  1. Sandya C. Jayasankaran
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Prameela G. Chelakkot
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Prabash Prabhakaran
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Resmi Sekhar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Prameela G. Chelakkot.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

None of the authors have any conflict of interest to disclose.

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

Jayasankaran, S.C., Chelakkot, P.G., Prabhakaran, P. et al. Role of Diffusion-Weighted Magnetic Resonance Imaging in the Evaluation of Ovarian Tumours. Indian J Gynecol Oncolog 17, 64 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40944-019-0305-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40944-019-0305-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation