Abstract
Purpose
To investigate the value of CT and MR imaging features in differentiating borderline ovarian tumor (BOT) from type I ovarian epithelial cancer (OEC), which could be significant for suitable clinical treatment and assessment of the prognosis of the patient.
Methods
Thirty-three patients with BOTs and 35 patients with type I OECs proven by pathology were retrospectively evaluated. The clinico-pathological information (age, premenopausal status, CA-125, and Ki-67) and imaging characteristics were compared between two groups of ovarian tumors. The diagnostic performance of the imaging features was evaluated using receiver operating characteristic analysis. The best predictor variables for type I EOCs were recognized via multivariate analyses.
Results
BOTs are more likely to involve younger patients and frequently show lower CA-125 values and lower proliferation indices (Ki-67 < 15%) than type I OECs. Compared with type I OECs, BOTs were more often purely cystic (15/33, 45.45% vs. 1/35, 2.86%; p < 0.001) and displayed less frequent mural nodules (16/33, 48.48% vs. 28/35, 80.00%; p = 0.007), less frequently unclear margin (3/33, 9.09% vs. 11/35, 31.43%; p = 0.023), smaller solid portion (0.56 ± 2.66 vs. 4.51 ± 3.88; p < 0.001), and thinner walls (0.3 ± 0.17 vs. 0.55 ± 0.24; p < 0.001). The maximum wall thickness presented the largest area under the curve (AUC, 0.848). Multivariate analysis revealed that the solid portion size (OR 10.822, p = 0.002) and maximum wall thickness (OR 9.130, p = 0.001) were independent indicators for the differential diagnosis between the two groups of lesions.
Conclusion
The solid portion size and maximum wall thickness significantly influenced the classification of the two groups of ovarian tumors.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Authors N (1971) Classification and Staging of Malignant Tumours in the Female Pelvis. Acta Obstet Gyn Scan 50(1):1-7
Naqvi J, Nagaraju E, Ahmad S (2015) MRI appearances of pure epithelial papillary serous borderline ovarian tumours. Clin Radiol 70(4):424-432
Kurman RJ, Shih IM (2016) The Dualistic Model of Ovarian Carcinogenesis Revisited, Revised, and Expanded. Am J Pathol 186(4):733-747
Shih IM, Kurman RJ (2004) Ovarian tumorigenesis: a proposed model based on morphological and molecular genetic analysis. Am J Pathol 164(5):1511-1518
Koshiyama M, Matsumura N, Konishi I (2014) Recent Concepts of Ovarian Carcinogenesis: Type I and Type II. Biomed Res Int 2014(5-6):934261
Singer G, Kurman RJ, Chang HW et al (2002) Diverse Tumorigenic Pathways in Ovarian Serous Carcinoma. Am J Pathol 160(4): 1223-1228
Li HM, Qiang JW, Ma FH et al (2017) The value of dynamic contrast–enhanced MRI in characterizing complex ovarian tumors. J Ovarian Res 10(1):4
Foti PV, Attinà G, Spadola S et al (2016) MR imaging of ovarian masses: classification and differential diagnosis. Insights into Imaging 7(1):21-41
Kurman RJ (2014) International Agency for Research on Cancer, World Health Organization, WHO Classification of Tumours of Female Reproductive Organs, 4th ed., International Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyon
Gershenson DM (2017) Management of borderline ovarian tumours. Best Pract Res Cl Ob 41:49-59
Khalifeh I, Munkarah AR, Schimp V et al (2005) The Impact of C-kit and Ki-67 Expression on Patients Prognosis in Advanced Ovarian Serous Carcinoma. Int J Gynecol Pathol 24(3):228-234
Pannu HK, Ma W, Zabor EC et al (2013) Enhancement of ovarian malignancy on clinical contrast enhanced MRI studies. ISRN Obstet Gynecol 2013(7): 979345–979353
Liu D, Zhang L, Indima N et al (2017) CT and MRI findings of type I and type II epithelial ovarian cancer. Eur J Radiol 90:225-233
Sadlecki P, Jozwicki J, Antosik P et al (2018) Expression of selected epithelial–mesenchymal transition transcription factors in serous borderline ovarian tumors and type I ovarian cancers. Tumor Biol. DOI: 1010428318784807
Gąsiorowska E, Michalak M, Warchoł W et al (2015) Clinical application of HE4 and CA125 in ovarian cancer type I and type II detection and differential diagnosis. Ginekol Pol 86(2):88-93
Sadlecki P, Walentowicz-Sadlecka M, Grabiec M (2017) Molecular diagnosis in type I epithelial ovarian cancer. Ginekol Pol 88(12):692-697
Li HM, Feng F, Qiang JW et al (2018) Quantitative dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging for differentiating benign, borderline, and malignant ovarian tumors. Abdom Radiol 43(11):3132-3141
Zhao SH, Qiang JW, Zhang GF et al (2014) Diffusion-weighted MR imaging for differentiating borderline from malignant epithelial tumours of the ovary: pathological correlation. Eur Radiol 24(9):2292-2299
Chen J, Chang C, Huang HC et al (2015) Differentiating between borderline and invasive malignancies in ovarian tumors using a multivariate logistic regression model. Taiwan J Obstet Gyne 54(4):398-402
Desouza NM, O”Neill R, Mcindoe GA et al (2005) Borderline Tumors of the Ovary: CT and MRI Features and Tumor Markers in Differentiation from Stage I Disease. AJR Am J Roentgenol 184(3):999-1003
Giurgea LN, Ungureanu C, Mihailovici MS (2012) The immunohistochemical expression of p53 and Ki67 in ovarian epithelial borderline tumors. Correlation with clinicopathological factors. Rom J Morphol Embryo 53(4):967-973
Zhang G, Yao W, Sun T et al (2019) Magnetic resonance imaging in categorization of ovarian epithelial cancer and survival analysis with focus on apparent diffusion coefficient value: correlation with Ki-67 expression and serum cancer antigen-125 level. J Ovarian Res. DOI: 10.1186/s13048-019-0534-0
Denewar FA, Takeuchi M, Urano M et al (2017) Multiparametric MRI for differentiation of borderline ovarian tumors from stage I malignant epithelial ovarian tumors using multivariate logistic regression analysis. Eur J of Radiol 91:116-123
Nougaret S, Lakhman Y, Molinari N, et al (2018) CT Features of Ovarian Tumors: Defining Key Differences Between Serous Borderline Tumors and Low-Grade Serous Carcinomas. AJR Am J Roentgenol 210(4):918-926
Ghossain MA, Buy JN, Lignères C et al (1991) Epithelial tumors of the ovary: comparison of MR and CT findings. Radiology 181(3):863-870
Jung SE, Lee JMRHASE, Byun JY, et al. (2002) CT and MR Imaging of Ovarian Tumors with Emphasis on Differential Diagnosis. Radiographics 22(6):1305–1325
Jang YJ, Kim JK, Park SB et al (2007) Variable CT Findings of Epithelial Origin Ovarian Carcinoma According to the Degree of Histologic Differentiation. Korean J Radiol 8(2):120-126
Li YA, Qiang JW, Ma FH et al (2018) MRI features and score for differentiating borderline from malignant epithelial ovarian tumors. Eur J Radiol 98:136-142
Mimura R, Kato F, Tha KK et al (2016) Comparison between borderline ovarian tumors and carcinomas using semi-automated histogram analysis of diffusion-weighted imaging: focusing on solid components. Jpn J Radiol 34(3):229-237
Kurata Y, Kido A, Moribata Y et al (2016) Diagnostic performance of MR imaging findings and quantitative values in the differentiation of seromucinous borderline tumour from endometriosis-related malignant ovarian tumour. Eur Radiol 27(4):1695-1703
Acknowledgement
This study was supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China (81871325).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.
Informed consent
Formal consent obtained from all subjects (patients) in this study.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Yang, S., Tang, H., Xiao, F. et al. Differentiation of borderline tumors from type I ovarian epithelial cancers on CT and MR imaging. Abdom Radiol 45, 3230–3238 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-020-02467-w
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-020-02467-w