Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Prospective evaluation of 3T MRI findings for primary adnexal lesions and comparison with the final histological diagnosis

  • Gynecologic Oncology
  • Published:
Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

We prospectively investigated the diagnostic accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) at 3.0 Tesla (3T) for the detection of suspected primary adnexal masses in a large cohort of patients.

Methods

This prospective clinical study included 223 patients with suspected gynaecological disease who were referred for 3T MRI assessments before laparoscopy or laparotomy. Fifty-nine patients were excluded. All detected adnexal pathologies on MRI were categorized into the four groups (endometric cysts, teratomas, benign tumours and malignant tumours). Histological findings were used as the comparative reference standard. As measures to detect or rule out primary adnexal masses, accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive values (PPV) and negative predictive values (NPV) were determined by lesion-based evaluations.

Results

The reference standard method detected 141 primary adnexal lesions in 125 patients. The areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve of the lesion-based evaluations for endometric cysts, teratomas, benign lesions and malignant lesions were 92.8, 93.6, 95.1 and 94.4 %. Lesion-based evaluation yielded an accuracy of 90.3 %, sensitivity of 92.7 %, specificity of 89.3 %, PPV of 77.6 % and NPV of 96.8 % in differentiating malignancies from non-malignant lesions. The diagnostic value of 3T MRI for detecting malignancies was superior to that for benign tumours.

Conclusions

3T MRI well categorize the characteristics of primary adnexal lesions and may be a reliable modality for distinguishing malignancies from benign tumours.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Myers ERBL, Havrilesky LJ, Kulasingam SL, Terplan M, Cline KE, Gray RN et al (2006) Management of adnexal mass. Evid Rep Technol Assess (Full Rep) 2006(130):1–145

    Google Scholar 

  2. Rajkotia K, Veeramani M, Macura KJ (2006) Magnetic resonance imaging of adnexal masses. Top Magn Reson Imaging 17:379–397

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Griffin N, Grant LA, Sala E (2010) Adnexal masses: characterization and imaging strategies. Seminars Ultrasound CT MRI 31:330–346

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Hricak H, Chen M, Coakley FV, Kinkel K, Yu KK, Sica G et al (2000) Complex adnexal masses: detection and characterization with MR imaging—multivariate analysis1. Radiology 214:39–46

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Sohaib SA, Mills TD, Sahdev A, Webb JAW, VanTrappen PO, Jacobs IJ et al (2005) The role of magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasound in patients with adnexal masses. Clin Radiol 60:340–348

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Funt SA, Hann LE (2002) Detection and characterization of adnexal masses. Radiol Clin North Am 40:591–608

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Adusumilli S, Hussain HK, Caoili EM, Weadock WJ, Murray JP, Johnson TD et al (2006) MRI of sonographically indeterminate adnexal masses. Am J Roentgenol 187:732–740

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Yamashita Y, Torashima M, Hatanaka Y, Harada M, Higashida Y, Takahashi M et al (1995) Adnexal masses: accuracy of characterization with transvaginal us and precontrast and postcontrast MR imaging. Radiology 194:557–565

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Komatsu T, Konishi I, Mandai M, Togashi K, Kawakami S, Konishi J et al (1996) Adnexal masses: transvaginal us and gadolinium-enhanced MR imaging assessment of intratumoral structure. Radiology 198:109–115

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Grab D, Flock F, Stöhr I, Nüssle K, Rieber A, Fenchel S et al (2000) Classification of asymptomatic adnexal masses by ultrasound, magnetic resonance imaging, and positron emission tomography. Gynecol Oncol 77:454–459

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Sohaib SAA, Sahdev A, Trappen PV, Jacobs IJ, Reznek RH (2003) Characterization of adnexal mass lesions on MR imaging. Am J Roentgenol 180:1297–1304

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Bazot M, Nassar-Slaba J, Thomassin-Naggara I, Cortez A, Uzan S, Darai E (2006) MR imaging compared with intraoperative frozen-section examination for the diagnosis of adnexal tumors; correlation with final histology. Eur Radiol 16:2687–2699

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Engelen MJA, Bongaerts AHH, Sluiter WJ, de Haan HH, Bogchelman DH, TenVergert EM et al (2008) Distinguishing benign and malignant pelvic masses: the value of different diagnostic methods in everyday clinical practice. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 136:94–101

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Thomassin-Naggara I, Darai E, Cuenod CA, Rouzier R, Callard P, Bazot M (2008) Dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging: a useful tool for characterizing ovarian epithelial tumors. J Magn Reson Imaging 28:111–120

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Chilla B, Hauser N, Singer G, Trippel M, Froehlich J, Kubik-Huch R (2011) Indeterminate adnexal masses at ultrasound: effect of MRI imaging findings on diagnostic thinking and therapeutic decisions. Eur Radiol 21:1301–1310

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Medeiros LR, Freitas LB, Rosa DD, Silva FR, Silva LS, Birtencourt LT et al (2011) Accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging in ovarian tumor: a systematic quantitative review. Am J Obstet Gynecol 204:67.e61

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Thomassin-Naggara I, Toussaint I, Perrot N, Rouzier R, Cuenod CA, Bazot M et al (2011) Characterization of complex adnexal masses: value of adding perfusion- and diffusion-weighted MR imaging to conventional MR imaging. Radiology 258:793–803

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Manganaro L, Fierro F, Tomei A, Irimia D, Lodise P, Sergi ME et al (2012) Feasibility of 3.0T pelvic MR imaging in the evaluation of endometriosis. Eur J Radiol 81:1381–1387

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Sala E, Kataoka MY, Priest AN, Gill AB, McLean MA, Joubert I et al (2012) Advanced ovarian cancer: multiparametric MR imaging demonstrates response- and metastasis-specific effects. Radiology 263:149–159

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Rieber A, Nüssle K, Stöhr I, Grab D, Fenchel S, Kreienberg R et al (2001) Preoperative diagnosis of ovarian tumors with MR imaging. Am J Roentgenol 177:123–129

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Shen J, Xia X, Lin Y, Zhu W, Yuan J (2011) Diagnosis of struma ovarii with medical imaging. Abdom Imaging 36:627–631

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Kim KA, Park CM, Lee JH, Kim HK, Cho SM, Kim B et al (2004) Benign ovarian tumors with solid and cystic components that mimic malignancy. Am J Roentgenol 182:1259–1265

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Togashi K (2003) Ovarian cancer: the clinical role of us, CT, and MRI. Eur Radiol 13:L87–L104

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Sala E, Rockall A, Rangarajan D, Kubik-Huch RA (2010) The role of dynamic contrast-enhanced and diffusion weighted magnetic resonance imaging in the female pelvis. Eur J Radiol 76:367–385

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Moyle P, Addley HC, Sala E (2010) Radiological staging of ovarian carcinoma. Semin Ultrasound CT MR 31:388–398

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Togashi K, Nishimura K, Kimura I, Tsuda Y, Yamashita K, Shibata T et al (1991) Endometrial cysts: diagnosis with MR imaging. Radiology 180:73–78

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Dr. Yong-Dong Li from the Department of Radiology, Sixth Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, for his invaluable suggestions during preparation of this manuscript.

Conflict of interest

We declare that we have no conflicts of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, Obstetrics and Gynecology Hospital, Fudan University, No. 419 Fang Xie Road, Shanghai, 200011, China

    He Zhang & Guo-Fu Zhang

  2. Department of Radiology, Shanghai First People’s Hospital, Medical College, Shanghai Jiaotong University, No.100 Hai Ning Road, Shanghai, 200086, China

    Zhi-Yan He, Zheng-Yu Li & Gui-Xiang Zhang

Authors
  1. He Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Guo-Fu Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Zhi-Yan He
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Zheng-Yu Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Gui-Xiang Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Guo-Fu Zhang.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Zhang, H., Zhang, GF., He, ZY. et al. Prospective evaluation of 3T MRI findings for primary adnexal lesions and comparison with the final histological diagnosis. Arch Gynecol Obstet 289, 357–364 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-013-2990-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-013-2990-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation