Value of ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging in the preoperative evaluation of suspected ovarian masses
- PMID: 12174952
Value of ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging in the preoperative evaluation of suspected ovarian masses
Abstract
Background: The stage of ovarian carcinoma at diagnosis directly affects prognosis. Thus, thorough pretreatment evaluation is basic to the successful management of suspected ovarian masses. Among currently available imaging techniques in characterization of suspected ovarian neoplasms, sonography (US) is indisputedly the primary imaging approach. When US is inconclusive, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is generally prefered to computed tomography (CT).
Materials and methods: 93 patients, who on the basis of clinical findings were suspected to have ovarian cancer and who were scheduled for subsequent surgical staging underwent preoperative transvaginal and abdominal ultrasound as well as magnetic resonance imaging in a prospective comparative study. US and MR images were evaluated for their information on the characterization and staging of the ovarian masses.
Results: MRI correctly characterized malignant and benign tumors in 89% of cases versus 85% by ultrasound. The site of the primary tumor was correctly diagnosed in 94% of cases by MRI vs. 90% by ultrasound. For US, the positive predictive value was 85%, the negative predictive value 73% vs. 92% and 89% for MRI. In differentiation of nonadvanced disease from advanced malignancy, US showed a false-positive rate of 0.416 and false-negative rate of 0.258 vs. 0.125 and 0.032 respectively, for MRI.
Conclusion: MRI was superior in diagnosis of malignant ovarian masses though US, too, performed well at lesion detection and characterization. With regard to tumor staging MRI is emerging as a problem-solving modality and may allow more appropriate clinical decisions to be made in selected patients with complex adnexal disease.
Similar articles
-
Magnetic resonance imaging in the preoperative evaluation of suspected ovarian masses.Anticancer Res. 1995 May-Jun;15(3):1123-5. Anticancer Res. 1995. PMID: 7645935 Clinical Trial.
-
Classification of asymptomatic adnexal masses by ultrasound, magnetic resonance imaging, and positron emission tomography.Gynecol Oncol. 2000 Jun;77(3):454-9. doi: 10.1006/gyno.2000.5768. Gynecol Oncol. 2000. PMID: 10831359 Clinical Trial.
-
Ovarian cancer: detection and radiologic staging.Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2009 Mar;52(1):73-93. doi: 10.1097/GRF.0b013e3181961625. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2009. PMID: 19179862 Review.
-
Assessment of combination of contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging and positron emission tomography/computed tomography for evaluation of ovarian masses.Invest Radiol. 2014 Aug;49(8):524-31. doi: 10.1097/RLI.0000000000000050. Invest Radiol. 2014. PMID: 24637584
-
Imaging strategy for early ovarian cancer: characterization of adnexal masses with conventional and advanced imaging techniques.Radiographics. 2012 Oct;32(6):1751-73. doi: 10.1148/rg.326125520. Radiographics. 2012. PMID: 23065168 Review.
Cited by
-
A new computer-aided diagnostic tool for non-invasive characterisation of malignant ovarian masses: results of a multicentre validation study.Eur Radiol. 2010 Aug;20(8):1822-30. doi: 10.1007/s00330-010-1750-6. Epub 2010 Mar 20. Eur Radiol. 2010. PMID: 20306081
-
Management of a suspicious adnexal mass: a clinical practice guideline.Curr Oncol. 2012 Aug;19(4):e244-57. doi: 10.3747/co.19.980. Curr Oncol. 2012. PMID: 22876153 Free PMC article.
-
Diagnostic accuracy of integrated FDG-PET/contrast-enhanced CT in staging ovarian cancer: comparison with enhanced CT.Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2008 Oct;35(10):1912-20. doi: 10.1007/s00259-008-0890-2. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2008. PMID: 18682935
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Medical