Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Background

Diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) and quantitative apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values are widely used in the differential diagnosis of ovarian tumors.

Purpose

To assess the diagnostic performance of quantitative ADC values in ovarian tumors.

Material and Methods

PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and local databases were searched for studies assessing ovarian tumors using quantitative ADC values. We quantitatively analyzed the diagnostic performances for two clinical problems: benign vs. malignant tumors and borderline vs. malignant tumors. We evaluated diagnostic performances by the pooled sensitivity and specificity values and by summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curves. Subgroup analyses were used to analyze study heterogeneity.

Results

From the 742 studies identified in the search results, 16 studies met our inclusion criteria. A total of ten studies evaluated malignant vs. benign ovarian tumors and six studies assessed malignant vs. borderline ovarian tumors. Regarding the diagnostic accuracy of quantitative ADC values for distinguishing between malignant and benign ovarian tumors, the pooled sensitivity and specificity values were 0.91 and 0.91, respectively. The area under the SROC curve (AUC) was 0.96. For differentiating borderline from malignant tumors, the pooled sensitivity and specificity values were 0.89 and 0.79, and the AUC was 0.91. The methodological quality of the included studies was moderate.

Conclusion

Quantitative ADC values could serve as useful preoperative markers for predicting the nature of ovarian tumors. Nevertheless, prospective trials focused on standardized imaging parameters are needed to evaluate the clinical value of quantitative ADC values in ovarian tumors.

Keywords

Diffusion-weighted imaging apparent diffusion coefficient ovarian tumors diagnosis meta-analysis

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Ferlay

Soerjomataram

Dikshit

et al.

Cancer incidence and mortality worldwide: sources, methods and major patterns in GLOBOCAN 2012. Int J Cancer 2015; 136: 359–386.

Gershenson

. Clinical management potential tumours of low malignancy. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 2002; 16: 513–527.

Skirnisdottir

Garmo

Wilander

et al.

Borderline ovarian tumors in Sweden 1960–2005: trends in incidence and age at diagnosis compared to ovarian cancer. Int J Cancer 2008; 123: 1897–1901.

Kurman

Carcangiu

Herrington

et al.

WHO classification of tumours of female reproductive organs, Lyon: IARC, 2014.

Sherman

Mink

Curtis

et al.

Survival among women with borderline ovarian tumors and ovarian carcinoma: a population-based analysis. Cancer 2004; 100: 1045–1052.

Silverberg

Bell

Kurman

et al.

Borderline ovarian tumors: key points and workshop summary. Hum Pathol 2004; 35: 910–917.

Siegelman

Outwater

. Tissue characterization in the female pelvis by means of MR imaging. Radiology 1999; 212: 5–18.

Kinoshita

Yashiro

Ihara

et al.

Diffusion-weighted half-Fourier single-shot turbo spin echo imaging in breast tumors: differentiation of invasive ductal carcinoma from fibroadenoma. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2002; 26: 1042–1046.

Sandrasegaran

Sundaram

Ramaswamy

et al.

Usefulness of diffusion-weighted imaging in the evaluation of renal masses. Am J Roentgenol 2010; 194: 438–445.

10.

Issa

. In vivo measurement of the apparent diffusion coefficient in normal and malignant prostatic tissues using echo-planar imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging 2002; 16: 196–200.

11.

Yao

Wan

et al.

Combined DWI and enhanced MRI in diagnosis of ovarian cystic tumors (in Chinese). Chin J Med Imaging Tech 2016; 32: 99–103. Available at: http://qikan.cqvip.com/article/detail.aspx?id=667646758&from=zk_search.

12.

Chu

Cui

et al.

Diffusion-weighted MRI: a useful technique to discriminate benign versus malignant ovarian surface epithelial tumors with solid and cystic components. Abdom Imaging 2012; 37: 897–903.

13.

Zhao

Qiang

Zhang

et al.

Diffusion-weighted MR imaging for differentiating borderline from malignant epithelial tumours of the ovary: pathological correlation. Eur Radiol 2014; 24: 2292–2299.

14.

Whiting

Rutjes

Westwood

et al.

QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann Intern Med 2011; 155: 529–536.

15.

Zamora

Abraira

Muriel

et al.

Meta-DiSc: a software for meta-analysis of test accuracy data. BMC Med Res Methodol 2006; 6: 31–31.

16.

Zhang

Cui

et al.

Diagnostic accuracy of diffusion-weighted imaging with conventional MR imaging for differentiating complex solid and cystic ovarian tumors at 1.5 T. World J Surg Oncol 2012; 10: 237–237.

17.

Cui

Zhu

et al.

Clinical application and research of diffusion weighted MR imaging in complex ovarian tumors (in Chinese). J Chin Clin Med Imaging 2012; 23: 856–859. Available at: http://qikan.cqvip.com/article/detail.aspx?id=44293950&from=zk_search.

18.

Mansour

Wessam

Raafat

. Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging in the assessment of ovarian masses with suspicious features: Strengths and challenges. Egyp J Radiol Nuclear Med 2015; 46: 1279–1289.

19.

Takeuchi

Matsuzaki

Nishitani

. 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.

20.

et al.

Differentiating value of diffusion weighted imaging combine with dynamic enhancement in ovarian tumors with cystic and solid components (in Chinese). Chin J CT MRI 2017; 15: 103–103. . Available at: http://qikan.cqvip.com/article/detail.aspx?id=671627570&from=zk_search.

21.

Kovač

Terzić

Mirković

et al.

Endometrioid adenocarcinoma of the ovary: MRI findings with emphasis on diffusion-weighted imaging for the differentiation of ovarian tumors. Acta Radiol 2016; 57: 758–766.

22.

Bai

et al.

Studies of diffusion-weighted imaging in the differential diagnosis of ovarian lesions (in Chinese). J Clin Radiol 2008; 27: 466–469. Available at: http://qikan.cqvip.com/article/detail.aspx?id=27118382&from=article_detail.

23.

Yang

Pan

et al.

The qualitative diagnosis of MRI combined with serum CA125 in ovarian tumors (in Chinese). Chin J CT MRI 2016; 14: 24–27. Available at: http://qikan.cqvip.com/article/detail.aspx?id=669540826&from=zk_search.

24.

Fang

Cao

Weng

et al.

Evaluation of dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging and diffusion weighted MR imaging in qualitatively diagnosing complex ovarian tumors (in Chinese). J Clin Radiol 2014; 33: 1705–1709. Available at: http://qikan.cqvip.com/article/detail.aspx?id=663053111&from=zk_search.

25.

Kurata

Kido

Moribata

et al.

Diagnostic performance of MR imaging finding quantitative value in the differentiation of seromucinous borderline tumor from endometriosis-related malignant ovarian tumour. Eur Radiol 2017; 27: 1695–1703.

26.

Mimura

Kato

Tha

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.

27.

Zhao

Qiang

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.

28.

Denewar

Takeuchi

Urano

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.

29.

Katayama

Masui

Kobayashi

et al.

Diffusion-weighted echo planar imaging of ovarian tumors: is it useful to measure apparent diffusion coefficients?

J Comput Assist Tomogr 2002; 26: 250–256.

30.

Thomassin-Naggara

Daraï

Cuenod

et al.

Contribution of diffusion-weighted MR imaging for predicting benignity of complex adnexal masses. Eur Radiol 2009; 19: 1544–1552.

31.

Kim

Lee

Shin

et al.

The value of diffusion-weighted imaging in the differential diagnosis of ovarian lesions: a meta-analysis. PLoS One 2016; 11: e0149465–e0149465.

32.

Moteki

Horikoshi

Endo

. Relationship between apparent diffusion coefficient and signal intensity in endometrial and other pelvic cysts. Magn Reson Imaging 2002; 20: 463–470.

33.

Meng

Zhu

Sun

et al.

Diffusion weighted imaging for the differential diagnosis of benign vs. malignant ovarian neoplasms. Oncol Lett 2016; 11: 3795–3802.

34.

Fan

Zhang

Meng

et al.

Role of diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging in differentiating malignancies from benign ovarian tumors. Int J Clin Exp Med 2015; 8: 19928–19937.

35.

Yuan

Guo

et al.

Diagnostic accuracy of DWI in patients with ovarian cancer: A meta-analysis. Medicine (Baltimore) 2017; 96: e6659–e6659.

36.

Padhani

Liu

Koh

et al.

Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging as a cancer biomarker: consensus and recommendations. Neoplasia 2009; 11: 102–125.

37.

Mukuda

Fujii

Inoue

et al.

Apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) measurement in ovarian tumor: effect of region-of-interest methods on ADC values and diagnostic ability. J Magn Reson Imaging 2016; 43: 720–725.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.06 MB

0.43 MB

Utility of DWI with quantitative ADC values in ovarian tumors: a meta-analysis of diagnostic test performance

Abstract

Background

Purpose

Material and Methods

Results

Conclusion

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References

Supplementary Material