Login Register Cart 0
Current Medical Imaging

Current Medical Imaging

Editor-in-Chief

ISSN (Print): 1573-4056
ISSN (Online): 1875-6603

Back
Journal Home About Journal Editorial Board Journal Insight Current Issue Volumes/Issues
Subscribe
Research Article

Differentiation of Borderline Epithelial Ovarian Tumors from Benign and Malignant Epithelial Ovarian Tumors by MRI Scoring

Author(s): Seyma Babaogluorcid of author, Abdullah Enes Atas*orcid of author, Ulku Kerimogluorcid of author, Mehmet Sinan İyisoyorcid of author and Fahriye Kilincauthors OrcID

Volume 20, 2024

Published on: 26 June, 2023

Article ID: e060623217706

Pages: 11

DOI: 10.2174/1573405620666230606125445

open_access

Become a Editorial Board Member
Become a Reviewer
Become a Editor
Become a Section Editor

Abstract

Introduction: The distinction between benign and borderline epithelial ovarian tumors is important because treatment and follow-up strategies differ.

Objective: We aimed to evaluate benign, borderline, and malignant epithelial ovarian tumors using MRI features and contributed to the preoperative evaluation.

Methods: MRIs of 81 patients (20 bilateral), including 31 benign, 27 borderline, and 23 malignant, who had pelvic imaging between 2013-2020, were evaluated retrospectively. The evaluation was made blindly to the pathology result by two radiologists with MRI scoring and features that we determined. MRI evaluation was performed with T1 TSE, T2 TSE, fat-suppressed T2 TSE, and before and after contrast T1 fat-suppressed and non-fat-suppressed TSE images. The numbers and findings obtained in scoring were evaluated by Chi-Square, ordinal logistic regression, and 2 and 3 category ROC analysis.

Results: The total score varied between 7 and 24. Among the three groups, a significant difference was found in terms of T1, T2 signal intensity (p <0.01), size (p = 0.055), solid area (p <0.001), septa number (p <0.05), ovarian parenchyma (p = 0.001), ascites (p <0.001), peritoneal involvement (p <0.001), laterality (p <0.001), contrast enhancement pattern (p <0.001). On the other hand, no significant difference was found in terms of wall thickness, lymph node involvement and endometrial thickness (p> 0.05). Cut-off values were found as 11.5 and 18.5 in the 3-category ROC analysis performed for the score (VUS: 0.8109). Patients with a score below 11.5 were classified as benign, those between 11.5-18.5 as borderline, and those over 18.5 as malignant.

Conclusion: The differentiation of borderline tumors from benign and malignant tumors by MRI scoring will contribute to the preoperative diagnosis.

Keywords: Magnetic resonance imaging, Ovarian neoplasia, Differential diagnosis, Borderline tumor, MRI, Malignant.

[1]
Alvarez RM, Vazquez-Vicente D. Fertility sparing treatment in borderline ovarian tumours. Ecancermedicalscience 2015; 9: 507.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.3332/ecancer.2015.507] [PMID: 25729420]
[2]
Borrelli GM, de Mattos LA, Andres MP, Gonçalves MO, Kho RM, Abrão MS. Role of imaging tools for the diagnosis of borderline ovarian tumors: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2017; 24(3): 353-63.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2016.12.012] [PMID: 28027973]
[3]
Kafer I, Sun M, Pellerito J. Breaking borders: A case report of borderline ovarian tumor in the pregnant patient. Ultrasound Q 2016; 32(4): 380-3.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/RUQ.0000000000000211] [PMID: 27870789]
[4]
Canfarotta M, Gillan E, Balarezo F, Campbell B, Tsai A, Finck C. Diagnosis, surgical treatment, and management of borderline ovarian surface epithelial neoplasms: Report of 2 cases and review of literature. J Pediatr Surg Case Rep 2014; 2(10): 468-72.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.epsc.2014.09.009]
[5]
Li YA, Qiang JW, Ma FH, Li HM, Zhao SH. MRI features and score for differentiating borderline from malignant epithelial ovarian tumors. Eur J Radiol 2018; 98(98): 136-42.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2017.11.014] [PMID: 29279152]
[6]
Gershenson DM. Management of borderline ovarian tumours. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 2017; 41: 49-59.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2016.09.012] [PMID: 27780698]
[7]
Alexander S, Cunha TM, Forstner R. Adnexal masses: Benign ovarian lesions and characterization. In: Medical Radiology Springer, Cham. 2017; pp. 241-71.
[8]
Park SY, Oh YT, Jung DC. Differentiation between borderline and benign ovarian tumors: Combined analysis of MRI with tumor markers for large cystic masses (≥5 cm). Acta Radiol 2016; 57(5): 633-9.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0284185115597266] [PMID: 26231948]
[9]
Flicek KT, VanBuren W, Dudiak K, et al. Borderline epithelial ovarian tumors: What the radiologist should know. Abdom Radiol 2021; 46(6): 2350-66.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00261-020-02688-z] [PMID: 32860524]
[10]
Li HM, Feng F, Qiang JW. Quantitative dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging for differentiating benign, borderline, and malignant ovarian tumors. Abdom Radiol 2018; 43(11): 3132-41.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00261-018-1569-1]
[11]
Matsuo K, Machida H, Takiuchi T, et al. Role of hysterectomy and lymphadenectomy in the management of early-stage borderline ovarian tumors. Gynecol Oncol 2017; 144(3): 496-502.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2017.01.019] [PMID: 28131526]
[12]
Amies Oelschlager AME, Gow KW, Morse CB, Lara-Torre E. Management of large ovarian neoplasms in pediatric and adolescent females. J Pediatr Adolesc Gynecol 2016; 29(2): 88-94.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jpag.2014.07.018] [PMID: 26165911]
[13]
Puls L, Heidtman E, Hunter JE, Crane M, Stafford J. The accuracy of frozen section by tumor weight for ovarian epithelial neoplasms. Gynecol Oncol 1997; 67(1): 16-9.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/gyno.1997.4836] [PMID: 9345350]
[14]
Song T, Choi CH, Kim HJ, et al. Accuracy of frozen section diagnosis of borderline ovarian tumors. Gynecol Oncol 2011; 122(1): 127-31.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2011.03.021] [PMID: 21492922]
[15]
Thomassin-Naggara I, Aubert E, Rockall A, et al. Adnexal masses: Development and preliminary validation of an MR imaging scoring system. Radiology 2013; 267(2): 432-43.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1148/radiol.13121161] [PMID: 23468574]
[16]
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: 116-23.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2017.04.001] [PMID: 28629557]
[17]
Yang S, Tang H, Xiao F, Zhu J, Hua T, Tang G. Differentiation of borderline tumors from type I ovarian epithelial cancers on CT and MR imaging. Abdom Radiol 2020; 45(10): 3230-8.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00261-020-02467-w] [PMID: 32162020]
[18]
Bent CL, Sahdev A, Rockall AG, Singh N, Sohaib SA, Reznek RH. MRI appearances of borderline ovarian tumours. Clin Radiol 2009; 64(4): 430-8.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.crad.2008.09.011] [PMID: 19264189]
[19]
Ma FH, Zhao SH, Qiang JW, Zhang GF, Wang XZ, Wang L. MRI appearances of mucinous borderline ovarian tumors: Pathological correlation. J Magn Reson Imaging 2014; 40(3): 745-51.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jmri.24408] [PMID: 24395397]
[20]
Zhao SH, Qiang JW, Zhang GF, Wang SJ, Qiu HY, Wang L. MRI in differentiating ovarian borderline from benign mucinous cystadenoma: Pathological correlation. J Magn Reson Imaging 2014; 39(1): 162-6.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jmri.24083] [PMID: 24123278]
[21]
Timmerman D, Van Calster B, Testa A, et al. Predicting the risk of malignancy in adnexal masses based on the simple rules from the international ovarian tumor analysis group. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2016; 214(4): 424-37.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2016.01.007] [PMID: 26800772]
[22]
Cho S, Kim B. CT and MRI findings of cystadenofibromas of the ovary. Eur Radiol 2004; 14(5): 798-804.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00330-003-2060-z]
[23]
Forstner R, Thomassin-Naggara I, Cunha TM, et al. ESUR recommendations for MR imaging of the sonographically indeterminate adnexal mass: An update. Eur Radiol 2017; 27(6): 2248-57.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00330-016-4600-3] [PMID: 27770228]
[24]
Bazot M, Haouy D, Daraï E, Cortez A, Dechoux-Vodovar S, Thomassin-Naggara I. Is MRI a useful tool to distinguish between serous and mucinous borderline ovarian tumours? Clin Radiol 2013; 68(1): e1-8.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.crad.2012.08.021] [PMID: 23044365]
[25]
Shen-Gunther J, Mannel RS. Ascites as a predictor of ovarian malignancy. Gynecol Oncol 2002; 87(1): 77-83.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/gyno.2002.6800] [PMID: 12468346]
[26]
Zhao SH, Qiang JW, Zhang GF, et al. MRI appearances of ovarian serous borderline tumor: Pathological correlation. J Magn Reson Imaging 2014; 40(1): 151-6.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jmri.24339] [PMID: 24923479]
[27]
Bernardin L, Dilks P, Liyanage S, Miquel ME, Sahdev A, Rockall A. Effectiveness of semi-quantitative multiphase dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI as a predictor of malignancy in complex adnexal masses: radiological and pathological correlation. Eur Radiol 2012; 22(4): 880-90.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00330-011-2331-z] [PMID: 22095438]
[28]
Kazerooni AF, Malek M, Haghighatkhah H, et al. Semiquantitative dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI for accurate classification of complex adnexal masses. J Magn Reson Imaging 2017; 45(2): 418-27.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jmri.25359] [PMID: 27367786]
[29]
Carter JS, Koopmeiners JS, Kuehn-Hajder JE, et al. Quantitative multiparametric MRI of ovarian cancer. J Magn Reson Imaging 2013; 38(6): 1501-9.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jmri.24119] [PMID: 23559453]

Rights & Permissions Print Cite
Article Metrics
Pdf icon 76
Html icon 1
Find your institution