UROGENITAL RADIOLOGY / ORIGINAL PAPER
Minimal apparent diffusion coefficient value of the solid component to differentiate borderline and malignant ovarian epithelial tumours: a preliminary report
1
Department of Radiology, Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Indonesia, Dr. Cipto Mangunkusumo Hospital, Jakarta, Indonesia
2
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Indonesia, Dr. Cipto Mangunkusumo Hospital, Jakarta, Indonesia
3
Department of Anatomical Pathology, Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Indonesia, Dr. Cipto Mangunkusumo Hospital, Jakarta, Indonesia
4
Department of Community Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Indonesia, Dr. Cipto Mangunkusumo Hospital, Jakarta, Indonesia
Submission date: 2019-11-29
Final revision date: 2020-03-19
Acceptance date: 2020-03-20
Publication date: 2020-05-13
Pol J Radiol, 2020; 85: 250-253
KEYWORDS
malignant ovarian tumorsBorderline ovarian tumorsICCmADC valueFree hand techniquemalignant ovarian tumoursborderline ovarian tumoursfree-hand technique
TOPICS
ABSTRACT
Purpose:
Ovarian tumours are the second most common cause of death from gynaecological cancer. There are three types of ovarian cancer based on histopathological examination: benign, borderline, and malignant. However, it is difficult to distinguish the borderline and malignant tumours. Several studies used the apparent diffusion coefficient value to distinguish the ovarian tumour types, with various results. This preliminary report focused more on the use of the minimal ADC (mADC) value on the solid component, to differentiate borderline and malignant ovarian tumours.
Material and methods:
In 21 cases of borderline ovarian tumours, of which 11 were regarded as malignant and 10 were regarded as borderline following histopathological examination, the mADC value was measured by two different radiologists by using free-hand technique. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was used to measure the reliability and agreement between the two radiologists. Receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curves were then calculated to determine the optimum cut-off point.
Results:
There were statistically significant (p = 0.001) of the mADC value between the borderline and malignant tumours. The intraclass correlation coefficient value showed excellent reliability and agreement between the examiners. The ROC curve showed the optimum cut-off point at 0.628 × 10–3 mm2/s (p = 0.001), which yielded 100% sensitivity and 80% specificity.
Conclusions:
The use of free-hand technique to measure the mADC value on the solid component can be valuable in differentiating borderline and malignant ovarian epithelial tumours. This result may assist clinicians in considering further treatment approaches.
Ovarian tumours are the second most common cause of death from gynaecological cancer. There are three types of ovarian cancer based on histopathological examination: benign, borderline, and malignant. However, it is difficult to distinguish the borderline and malignant tumours. Several studies used the apparent diffusion coefficient value to distinguish the ovarian tumour types, with various results. This preliminary report focused more on the use of the minimal ADC (mADC) value on the solid component, to differentiate borderline and malignant ovarian tumours.
Material and methods:
In 21 cases of borderline ovarian tumours, of which 11 were regarded as malignant and 10 were regarded as borderline following histopathological examination, the mADC value was measured by two different radiologists by using free-hand technique. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was used to measure the reliability and agreement between the two radiologists. Receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curves were then calculated to determine the optimum cut-off point.
Results:
There were statistically significant (p = 0.001) of the mADC value between the borderline and malignant tumours. The intraclass correlation coefficient value showed excellent reliability and agreement between the examiners. The ROC curve showed the optimum cut-off point at 0.628 × 10–3 mm2/s (p = 0.001), which yielded 100% sensitivity and 80% specificity.
Conclusions:
The use of free-hand technique to measure the mADC value on the solid component can be valuable in differentiating borderline and malignant ovarian epithelial tumours. This result may assist clinicians in considering further treatment approaches.
REFERENCES (16)
1.
Lalwani N, Shanbhoque AKP, Vikram R, et al. Current Update on Borderline Ovarian Neoplasms. Am J Roentgenol 2010; 194: 330-336.
2.
Takeuchi M, Mayumi 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: 173-176.
3.
Hellyanti T, Tjahjadi H. Accuracy of frozen biopsy on ovarian tumor epithelial type. Indonesian Pathology Journal 2012; 21: 37-43.
4.
Wakefield JC, Downey K, Kyriazi S, deSouza NM. New MR techniques in gynecologic cancer. Am J Roentgenol 2013; 200: 249-260.
5.
Li W, Chu C, Cui Y, et al. Diffusion-weighted MRI: a useful technique to discriminate benign versus malignant ovarian surface epithelial tumors with solid and cystic components. Abdom Radiol 2012; 37: 897-903.
6.
Fujii S, Kakite S, Nishihara K, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of diffusion-weighted imaging in differentiating benign from malignant ovarian lesions. J Magn Reson Imaging 2008; 28: 1149-1156.
7.
Nasr E, Hamed I, Abbas I, Khalifa NM. Dynamic contrast enhanced MRI in correlation with diffusion weighted (DWI) MR for characterization of ovarian masses. Egypt J Radiol Nucl Med 2014; 45: 975-985.
8.
Mansour S, Wessam R, Raafat M. Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging in the assessment of ovarian masses with suspicious features: strengths and challenges. Egypt J Radiol Nucl Med 2015; 46: 1279-1289.
9.
Fischerova D, Zikan M, Dundr P, Cibula D. Diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up of borderline ovarian tumors. Oncologist 2012; 17: 1515-1533.
10.
McCluggage WG. The pathology of and controversial aspects of ovarian borderline tumors. Curr Opin Oncol 2010; 22: 462-472.
11.
Hauptmann S, Friedrich K, Redline R, Avril S. Ovarian borderline tumors in the 2014 WHO classification: evolving concepts and diagnostic criteria. Virchows Arch 2017; 470: 125-142.
12.
Koo TK, Li MY. A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. J Chiropr Med 2016; 15: 155-163.
13.
Li HM, Zhao SH, Qiang JW, et al. Diffusion kurtosis imaging for differentiating borderline from malignant epithelial ovarian tumors: a correlation with Ki-67 expression. J Magn Reson Imaging 2017; 46: 1499-1506.
14.
Mimura R, Kato F, Tha KK, et al. Comparison between borderline ovarian tumors and carcinomas using semi-automated histogram analysis of diffusion-weighted imaging: focusing on solid components. Jpn J Radiol 2016; 34: 229-237.
15.
Denewar FA, Takeuchi M, Urano M, et al. Multiparametric MRI for differentiation of borderline ovarian tumors from stage I malignant epithelial ovarian tumors using multivariate logistic regression analysis. Eur J Radiol 2017; 91: 116-123.
16.
Kim SH. Assessment of solid components of borderline ovarian tumor and stage I carcinoma: added value of combined diffusion- and perfusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging. Yeungnam Univ J Med 2019; 36: 231-240.
We process personal data collected when visiting the website. The function of obtaining information about users and their behavior is carried out by voluntarily entered information in forms and saving cookies in end devices. Data, including cookies, are used to provide services, improve the user experience and to analyze the traffic in accordance with the Privacy policy. Data are also collected and processed by Google Analytics tool (more).
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
