Accurate preoperative diagnosis of malignant ovarian tumors (MOTs) is particularly important for selecting the optimal treatment strategy and avoiding overtreatment.
Purpose
To evaluate the diagnostic efficacy of dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (DCE-MRI) for MOTs.
Material and Methods
A systematic search was performed in PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases to find relevant original articles up to October 2019. The included studies were assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool. Studies on the diagnosis of MOTs with quantitative or semi-quantitative DCE-MRI were analyzed separately. The bivariate random-effects model was used to assess the diagnostic authenticity. Meta-regression analyses were performed to analyze the potential heterogeneity.
Results
For semi-quantitative DCE-MRI, the pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (LR), negative LR, diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), and the area under the summary receiver operating characteristic curves (AUC) were 85% (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.75–0.92), 85% (95% CI 0.77–0.91), 5.8 (95% CI 3.8–8.8), 0.17 (95% CI 0.10–0.30), 33 (95% CI 18–61), and 0.92 (95% CI 0.89–0.94), respectively. For quantitative DCE-MRI, the pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive LR, negative LR, DOR, and AUC were 88% (95% CI 0.65–0.96), 93% (95% CI 0.78–0.98), 12.3 (95% CI 3.4–43.9), 0.13 (95% CI 0.04–0.45), 91 (95% CI 10–857), and 0.96 (95% CI 0.94–0.98), respectively.
Conclusion
DCE-MRI has great diagnostic value for MOTs. Semi-quantitative DCE-MRI may be a relatively mature approach; however, quantitative DCE-MRI appears to be more promising than semi-quantitative DCE-MRI.
CoburnSBBrayFShermanME, et al.
International patterns and trends in ovarian cancer incidence, overall and by histologic subtype. Int J Cancer2017;
140:2451–2460.
2.
SmithHOBerwickMVerschraegenCF, et al.
Incidence and survival rates for female malignant germ cell tumors.Obstet Gynecol2006;
107:1075–1085.
ZhaoSLiHQiangJ, et al.
The value of MRI for differentiating benign from malignant sex cord-stromal tumors of the ovary: emphasis on diffusion-weighted MR imaging. J Ovarian Res2018;
11:73.
5.
AntilaRJalkanenJHeikinheimoO.Comparison of secondary and primary ovarian malignancies reveals differences in their pre- and perioperative characteristics. Gynecol Oncol2006;
101:97–101.
6.
FerlayJColombetMSoerjomataramI, et al.
Estimating the global cancer incidence and mortality in 2018: GLOBOCAN sources and methods. Int J Cancer2019;
144:1941–1953.
7.
QuerleuDPlanchampFChivaL, et al.
European Society of Gynaecological Oncology (ESGO) Guidelines for Ovarian Cancer Surgery. Int J Gynecol Cancer2017;
27:1534–1542.
8.
EscayolaCTorrentJJFerronG, et al.
When and Who Should Perform Epithelial Ovarian Cancer Surgery?Int J Gynecol Cancer2018;
28:594–599.
9.
VargasHABarrettTSalaE.MRI of ovarian masses. J Magn Reson Imaging2013;
37:265–281.
10.
ChillaBHauserNSingerG, et al.
Indeterminate adnexal masses at ultrasound: effect of MRI imaging findings on diagnostic thinking and therapeutic decisions. Eur Radiol2011;
21:1301–1310.
11.
PadhaniARKhanAA.Diffusion-weighted (DW) and dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for monitoring anticancer therapy. Target Oncol2010;
5:39–52.
12.
CarmelietPJainRK.Principles and mechanisms of vessel normalization for cancer and other angiogenic diseases. Nat Rev Drug Discov2011;
10:417–427.
13.
PaldinoMJBarboriakDP.Fundamentals of quantitative dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am2009;
17:277–289.
14.
YankeelovTEGoreJC.Dynamic contrast enhanced magnetic resonance imaging in oncology: Theory, data acquisition, analysis, and examples. Curr Med Imaging Rev2007;
3:91–107.
PadhaniAR.Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI in clinical oncology: current status and future directions. J Magn Reson Imaging2002;
16:407–422.
17.
MoonMCornfeldDWeinrebJ.Dynamic contrast-enhanced breast MR imaging. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am2009;
17:351–362.
18.
BermanRMBrownAMChangSD, et al.
DCE MRI of prostate cancer. Abdom Radiol (NY)2016;
41:844–853.
19.
McInnesMDFMoherDThombsBD, et al.
Preferred Reporting Items for a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies: The PRISMA-DTA Statement. JAMA2018;
319:388–396.
20.
WhitingPFRutjesAWSWestwoodME, et al.
QUADAS-2: A Revised Tool for the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies. Ann Intern Med2011;
155:529–536.
21.
HigginsJPTThompsonSGDeeksJJ, et al.
Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. Br Med J2003;
327:557–560.
22.
DevilleWLBuntinxFBouterLM, et al.
Conducting systematic reviews of diagnostic studies: didactic guidelines. BMC Med Res Methodol2002;
2:9.
23.
DeeksJJMacaskillPIrwigL.The performance of tests of publication bias and other sample size effects in systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy was assessed. J Clin Epidemiol2005;
58:882–893.
24.
SohaibSAASahdevAVan TrappenP, et al.
Characterization of adnexal mass lesions on MR imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol2003;
180:1297–1304.
25.
PriestANGillABKataokaM, et al.
Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI in ovarian cancer: Initial experience at 3 tesla in primary and metastatic disease. Magn Reson Med2010;
63:1044–1049.
26.
CarterJSKoopmeinersJSKuehn-HajderJE, et al.
Quantitative multiparametric MRI of ovarian cancer. J Magn Reson Imaging2013;
38:1501–1509.
27.
PonceletEDelpierreCKerdraonO, et al.
Value of dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI for tissue characterization of ovarian teratomas: Correlation with histopathology. Clin Radiol2013;
68:909–916.
28.
TangYZLiyanageSNarayananP, et al.
The MRI features of histologically proven ovarian cystadenofibromas-an assessment of the morphological and enhancement patterns. Eur Radiol2013;
23:48–56.
29.
DogheimOYAbdel HamidAEDMBarakatMS, et al.
Role of novel magnetic resonance imaging sequences in characterization of ovarian masses. Egyptian Journal of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine2014;
45:237–251.
30.
TanakaYOOkadaSSatohT, et al.
Solid non-invasive ovarian masses on MR: Histopathology and a diagnostic approach. Eur J Radiol2011;
80:E91–E97.
31.
MalekMPourashrafMMousaviAS, et al.
Differentiation of benign from malignant adnexal masses by functional 3 tesla MRI techniques: diffusion-weighted imaging and time-intensity curves of dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev2015;
16:3407–3412.
32.
DilksPNarayananPReznekR, et al.
Can quantitative dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI independently characterize an ovarian mass?Eur Radiol2010;
20:2176–2183.
33.
ElzayatWAEl-KalioubieMAbdel-NabyMM, et al.
The role of dynamic contrast enhanced MR imaging in the assessment of inconclusive ovarian masses. Egyptian Journal of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine2017;
48:1159–1169.
34.
KazerooniAFMalekMHaghighatkhahH, et al.
Semiquantitative dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI for accurate classification of complex adnexal masses. J Magn Reson Imaging2017;
45:418–427.
35.
Thomassin-NaggaraISoualhiNBalvayD, et al.
Quantifying tumor vascular heterogeneity with DCE-MRI in complex adnexal masses: A preliminary study. J Magn Reson Imaging2017;
46:1776–1785.
36.
GityMParvizSSaligheh RadH, et al.
Differentiation of Benign from Malignant Adnexal Masses by Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced MRI (DCE-MRI): Quantitative and Semi-quantitative analysis at 3-Tesla MRI. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev2019;
20:1073–1079.
37.
KazerooniAFNabilMKhahHH, et al.
A one-step biomarker quantification methodology for DCE-MRI of adnexal masses: Capturing kinetic pattern from early to late enhancement. Magn Reson Med2018;
79:1165–1171.
38.
Thomassin-NaggaraIBazotMDaraiE, et al.
Epithelial ovarian tumors: Value of dynamic contrast-enhanced MR Imaging and correlation with tumor angiogenesis. Radiology2008;
248:148–159.
39.
BernardinLDilksPLiyanageS, et al.
Effectiveness of semi-quantitative multiphase dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI as a predictor of malignancy in complex adnexal masses: Radiological and pathological correlation. Eur Radiol2012;
22:880–890.
40.
NasrEHamedIAbbasI, et al.
Dynamic contrast enhanced MRI in correlation with diffusion weighted (DWI) MR for characterization of ovarian masses. Egyptian Journal of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine2014;
45:975–985.
41.
TangYZBenardinLBoothTC, et al.
Use of an internal reference in semi-quantitative dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI (DCE MRI) of indeterminate adnexal masses. Br J Radiol2014;
87:20130730.
42.
LiXHuJLZhuLM, et al.
The clinical value of dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI in differential diagnosis of malignant and benign ovarian lesions. Tumor Biol2015;
36:5515–5522.
43.
ManganaroLAnastasiEPorporaMG, et al.
Biparametric magnetic resonance imaging as an adjunct to ca125 and he4 to improve characterization of large ovarian masses. Anticancer Res2015;
35:6341–6351.
44.
MansourSMSarayaSEl-FaissalY.Semi-quantitative contrast-enhanced MR analysis of indeterminate ovarian tumours: When to say malignancy?Br J Radiol2015;
88.
45.
LiHMQiangJWMaFH, et al.
The value of dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI in characterizing complex ovarian tumors. J Ovarian Res2017;
10:4.
46.
Emad-EldinSGraceMNWahbaMH, et al.
The diagnostic potential of diffusion weighted and dynamic contrast enhanced MR imaging in the characterization of complex ovarian lesions. Egyptian Journal of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine2018;
49:884–891.
47.
SinglaVDawadiKSinghT, et al.
Multiparametric MRI Evaluation of Complex Ovarian Masses. Curr Probl Diagn Radiol2019. DOI: 10.1067/j.cpradiol.2019.07.008.
48.
Thomassin-NaggaraIBalvayDAubertE, et al.
Quantitative dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging analysis of complex adnexal masses: A preliminary study. Eur Radiol2012;
22:738–745.
49.
LiHMFengFQiangJW, et al.
Quantitative dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging for differentiating benign, borderline, and malignant ovarian tumors. Abdom Radiol (NY)2018;
43:3132–3141.
50.
MalekMOghabianZTabibianE, et al.
Comparison of Qualitative (Time Intensity Curve Analysis), Semi-Quantitative, and Quantitative Multi-Phase 3T DCEMRI Parameters as Predictors of Malignancy in Adnexal. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev2019;
20:1603–1611.
51.
Thomassin-NaggaraIAubertERockallA, et al.
Adnexal Masses: Development and Preliminary Validation of an MR Imaging Scoring System. Radiology2013;
267:432–443.
52.
Thomassin-NaggaraIPonceletEJalaguier-CoudrayA, et al.
Ovarian-Adnexal Reporting Data System Magnetic Resonance Imaging (O-RADS MRI) Score for Risk Stratification of Sonographically Indeterminate Adnexal Masses. JAMA Netw Open2020;
3:e1919896.
53.
KuhlCKMielcareckPKlaschikS, et al.
Dynamic breast MR imaging: are signal intensity time course data useful for differential diagnosis of enhancing lesions?Radiology1999;
211:101–110.
54.
RosenkrantzABSabachABabbJS, et al.
Prostate cancer: comparison of dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI techniques for localization of peripheral zone tumor. AJR Am J Roentgenol2013;
201:W471–478.
55.
NagurneyJTBrownDFMSaneS, et al.
The accuracy and completeness of data collected by prospective and retrospective methods. Acad Emerg Med2005;
12:884–895.
56.
SchwartzRJPanacekEA.Basics of research (Part 7): Archival data research. Air Med J1996;
15:119–124.
57.
CiullaMMVivonaP.Time arrow in published clinical studies/trials indexed in MEDLINE: a systematic analysis of retrospective vs. prospective study design, from 1960 to 2017. PeerJ2019;
7:e6363.
58.
YangWTParikhJRStavrosAT, et al.
Exploring the Negative Likelihood Ratio and How It Can Be Used to Minimize False-Positives in Breast Imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol2018;
210:301–306.
59.
HuHXuXQLiuH, et al.
Orbital benign and malignant lymphoproliferative disorders: Differentiation using semi-quantitative and quantitative analysis of dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging. Eur J Radiol2017;
88:88–94.
60.
VirostkoJHainlineAKangH, et al.
Dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging and diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging for predicting the response of locally advanced breast cancer to neoadjuvant therapy: a meta-analysis. J Med Imaging (Bellingham)2018;
5:011011.
61.
CalamanteF.Arterial input function in perfusion MRI: a comprehensive review. Prog Nucl Magn Reson Spectrosc2013;
74:1–32.
62.
FranielTHammBHricakH.Dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging and pharmacokinetic models in prostate cancer. Eur Radiol2010;
21:616–626.
63.
SwetsJA.Measuring the Accuracy of Diagnostic Systems. Science1988;
240:1285–1293.
64.
JacksonALiKLZhuX.Semi-quantitative parameter analysis of DCE-MRI revisited: monte-carlo simulation, clinical comparisons, and clinical validation of measurement errors in patients with type 2 neurofibromatosis. PLoS One2014;
9:e90300.
65.
WoolfDKPadhaniARTaylorNJ, et al.
Assessing response in breast cancer with dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging: are signal intensity-time curves adequate?Breast Cancer Res Treat2014;
147:335–343.
66.
SourbronSPBuckleyDL.On the scope and interpretation of the Tofts models for DCE-MRI. Magn Reson Med2011;
66:735–745.
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.
