Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The added value of ADC histogram in characterization of intrauterine masses

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Chinese Journal of Academic Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Introduction

Purpose to investigate the added value of ADC histogram parameters combined with the MRI features to differentiate among the uterine sarcomas (US), endometrial carcinomas (EC) and endometrial polyps (EP).

Materials and methods

The differences of MRI features of 31 cases of US, 51 cases of EC and 27 cases of EP were retrospectively analyzed. The binary logistic regression model was adopted to evaluate the discriminating value of variables. ADC histograms of all lesions were reconstructed and measured, the sensitivity and specificity were calculated, and the diagnostic efficacy was evaluated by AUC value.

Results

Binary logistic regression showed that low intensity area on T2WI and presence of cystic degeneration for the characterization between US and EC, the maximum tumor diameter and the muscular invasion for the characterization between US and EP were the most valuable predictive variables (P < 0.001). The ADCmean, ADCmax, ADCmin, Q10, Q25, Q50, Q75, Q90 of US were all significant higher than that of EC, (P < 0.05). Among of them, the ADCmax had the best diagnostic efficiency (AUC = 0.789), the sensitivity and specificity were 77.4%, 80.4% with the cut-off value of 1.37 (*10− 3mm/s). The ADCmean, ADCmin, Q10, Q25 and Q75 of US were significant lower than that of EP (P < 0.05). Among of them, the ADCmin have the best diagnostic efficiency (AUC = 0.856), the sensitivity and specificity were 61.3%, 96.3% with the cut-off value of 0.81 (*10− 3mm/s).

Conclusion

The ADC histogram has the added value to the MRI features in the differential diagnosis among of US, EC and EP.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

The datasets generated during and/or analysed during the current study are not publicly available due privacy ethical but are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

References

  1. Prat J, Mbatani N. Uterine sarcomas. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 2015;131:S105–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Wang C, Zheng X, Zhou Z, Shi Y, Wu Q, Lin K. Differentiating cellular leiomyoma from uterine sarcoma and atypical leiomyoma using multi-parametric MRI. Front Oncol. 2022;12:1005191.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Balcacer P, Cooper KA, Huber S, Spektor M, Pahade JK, Israel GM. Magnetic resonance imaging features of endometrial polyps: frequency of occurrence and interobserver reliability. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2018;42(5):721–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Sousa FAE, Ferreira J, Cunha TM. MR imaging of uterine sarcomas: a comprehensive review with radiologic-pathologic correlation. Abdom Radiol (NY). 2021;46(12):5687–706.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Bakir B, et al. Role of diffusion weighted MRI in the differential diagnosis of endometrial cancer, polyp, hyperplasia, and physiological thickening. Clin Imaging. 2017;41:86–94.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Takahashi M, et al. Utility of histogram analysis of apparent diffusion coefficient maps obtained using 3.0T MRI for distinguishing uterine carcinosarcoma from endometrial carcinoma. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2016;43(6):1301–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Genever AV, Abdi S. Can MRI predict the diagnosis of endometrial carcinosarcoma? Clin Radiol. 2011;66(7):621–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Huang Y-T, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of 3.0T diffusion-weighted MRI for patients with uterine carcinosarcoma: assessment of tumor extent and lymphatic metastasis. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2018;48(3):622–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Valletta R, Corato V, Lombardo F, Avesani G, Negri G, Steinkasserer M, Tagliaferri T, Bonatti M. Leiomyoma or sarcoma? MRI performance in the differential diagnosis of sonographically suspicious uterine masses. Eur J Radiol. 2023;170:111217.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Sahin H, Smith J, Zawaideh JP, et al. Diagnostic interpretation of non-contrast qualitative MR imaging features for characterisation of uterine leiomyosarcoma. Br J Radiol. 2021;94(1125):20210115.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Nakai G, Matsutani H, Yamada T, Ohmichi M, Yamamoto K, Osuga K. Imaging findings of uterine adenosarcoma with sarcomatous overgrowth: two case reports, emphasizing restricted diffusion on diffusion weighted imaging. BMC Womens Health. 2021;21(1):416.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Kamishima Y, et al. A predictive diagnostic model using multiparametric MRI for differentiating uterine carcinosarcoma from carcinoma of the uterine corpus. Jpn J Radiol. 2017;35(8):472–83.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Tanaka YO, et al. Carcinosarcoma of the uterus: MR findings. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2008;28(2):434–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Bi Q, et al. The value of clinical parameters combined with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) features for preoperatively distinguishing different subtypes of uterine sarcomas: an observational study (STROBE compliant). Med (Baltim). 2020;99(16):e19787.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Yuan Z, et al. Uterine adenosarcoma: a retrospective 12-Year single-center study. Front Oncol. 2019:9.

  16. Singh R. Review literature on uterine carcinosarcoma. J Cancer Res Ther. 2014;10(3):461–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Cantrell LA, Blank SV, Duska LR. Uterine carcinosarcoma: a review of the literature. Gynecol Oncol. 2015;137(3):581–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Denschlag D, Ulrich UA. Uterine carcinosarcomas - diagnosis and management. Oncol Res Treat. 2018;41(11):675–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Takeuchi M, et al. Adenosarcoma of the uterus: magnetic resonance imaging characteristics. Clin Imaging. 2009;33(3):244–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. D’Angelo E, Prat J. Pathology of mixed Müllerian tumours. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2011;25(6):705–18.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Zhang G-F, et al. Magnetic resonance and diffusion-weighted imaging in categorization of uterine sarcomas: correlation with pathological findings. Clin Imaging. 2014;38(6):836–44.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Santos P, Cunha TM. Uterine sarcomas: clinical presentation and MRI features. Diagn Interventional Radiol. 2015;21(1).

  23. Friedlander ML, et al. Gynecologic cancer intergroup (GCIG) consensus review for mullerian adenosarcoma of the female genital tract. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2014;24(9 Suppl 3):S78–82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Fujii S, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of the apparent diffusion coefficient in differentiating benign from malignant uterine endometrial cavity lesions: initial results. Eur Radiol. 2008;18(2):384–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Maeda M, et al. Soft-tissue tumors evaluated by line-scan diffusion-weighted imaging: influence of myxoid matrix on the apparent diffusion coefficient. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2007;25(6):1199–204.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, Tianjin Medical University General Hospital, No.154, Anshan Road, Tianjin, 300052, China

    Chai Yitong & Sun Haoran

Authors
  1. Chai Yitong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sun Haoran
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sun Haoran.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

All authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Research involving human participants and/or animals

Not applicable.

Informed consent

Patient consent for publication of anonymized images was waived.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

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

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Yitong, C., Haoran, S. The added value of ADC histogram in characterization of intrauterine masses. Chin J Acad Radiol (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s42058-024-00147-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s42058-024-00147-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation