PURPOSE: To identify parameters associated with ovarian malignancy using multiparametric quantitative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). MATERIALS AND METHODS: After Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval, women with ovarian masses underwent preoperative imaging with 3 T MRI. Dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE)-MRI with pharmacokinetic modeling, quantitative T2 mapping, and diffusion-weighted imaging with quantitative mapping of the water diffusion parameters were performed. Ovarian masses had one or more discreet regions of interest, categorized as cystic or solid, and histologically diagnosed as benign or malignant. Mean region of interest (ROI) values were compared between benign and malignant masses using generalized estimating equations. In addition, we compared classification accuracy for the mean ROI value to a combination of histogram characteristics (standard deviation, skewness, and kurtosis) from T2 map ROIs using logistic regression and ROC curve. The significance level was P = 0.05. RESULTS: Several DCE-MRI parameters differentiated solid benign from malignant masses. Toft's rate constant (kep ) was significantly higher in malignant masses (P < 0.001), as well as quantitative T2 values (P = 0.003), and signal intensity on T2 weighted imaging (P = 0.008). A linear combination of the mean, standard deviation, skewness, and kurtosis of T2 within solid regions (area under the curve [AUC] 0.90) provided better classification accuracy than the mean of T2 alone (AUC 0.81). CONCLUSION: Quantitative parameters from DCE-MRI and T2 mapping can differentiate benign from malignant ovarian masses.
PURPOSE: To identify parameters associated with ovarian malignancy using multiparametric quantitative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). MATERIALS AND METHODS: After Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval, women with ovarian masses underwent preoperative imaging with 3 T MRI. Dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE)-MRI with pharmacokinetic modeling, quantitative T2 mapping, and diffusion-weighted imaging with quantitative mapping of the water diffusion parameters were performed. Ovarian masses had one or more discreet regions of interest, categorized as cystic or solid, and histologically diagnosed as benign or malignant. Mean region of interest (ROI) values were compared between benign and malignant masses using generalized estimating equations. In addition, we compared classification accuracy for the mean ROI value to a combination of histogram characteristics (standard deviation, skewness, and kurtosis) from T2 map ROIs using logistic regression and ROC curve. The significance level was P = 0.05. RESULTS: Several DCE-MRI parameters differentiated solid benign from malignant masses. Toft's rate constant (kep ) was significantly higher in malignant masses (P < 0.001), as well as quantitative T2 values (P = 0.003), and signal intensity on T2 weighted imaging (P = 0.008). A linear combination of the mean, standard deviation, skewness, and kurtosis of T2 within solid regions (area under the curve [AUC] 0.90) provided better classification accuracy than the mean of T2 alone (AUC 0.81). CONCLUSION: Quantitative parameters from DCE-MRI and T2 mapping can differentiate benign from malignant ovarian masses.
Authors: S A Aslam Sohaib; Ahju Sahdev; Philippe Van Trappen; Ian J Jacobs; Rodney H Reznek Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2003-05 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: J N Buy; M A Ghossain; D Hugol; K Hassen; C Sciot; J B Truc; P Poitout; D Vadrot Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 1996-02 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: S M Stein; S Laifer-Narin; M B Johnson; L D Roman; L I Muderspach; J M Tyszka; P W Ralls Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 1995-02 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: P S Tofts; G Brix; D L Buckley; J L Evelhoch; E Henderson; M V Knopp; H B Larsson; T Y Lee; N A Mayr; G J Parker; R E Port; J Taylor; R M Weisskoff Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 1999-09 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: M E Pisanu; A Ricci; L Paris; E Surrentino; L Liliac; M Bagnoli; S Canevari; D Mezzanzanica; F Podo; E Iorio; R Canese Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2013-12-12 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Lisa C Adams; Keno K Bressem; Phillipp Jurmeister; Ute L Fahlenkamp; Bernhard Ralla; Guenther Engel; Bernd Hamm; Jonas Busch; Marcus R Makowski Journal: Cancer Imaging Date: 2019-06-07 Impact factor: 3.909
Authors: Dirk Timmerman; François Planchamp; Tom Bourne; Chiara Landolfo; Andreas du Bois; Luis Chiva; David Cibula; Nicole Concin; Daniela Fischerova; Wouter Froyman; Guillermo Gallardo Madueño; Birthe Lemley; Annika Loft; Liliana Mereu; Philippe Morice; Denis Querleu; Antonia Carla Testa; Ignace Vergote; Vincent Vandecaveye; Giovanni Scambia; Christina Fotopoulou Journal: Int J Gynecol Cancer Date: 2021-06-10 Impact factor: 3.437
Authors: I Thomassin-Naggara; D Balvay; A Rockall; M F Carette; M Ballester; E Darai; M Bazot Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2015-08-27 Impact factor: 3.411
Authors: Jessica Lohrke; Thomas Frenzel; Jan Endrikat; Filipe Caseiro Alves; Thomas M Grist; Meng Law; Jeong Min Lee; Tim Leiner; Kun-Cheng Li; Konstantin Nikolaou; Martin R Prince; Hans H Schild; Jeffrey C Weinreb; Kohki Yoshikawa; Hubertus Pietsch Journal: Adv Ther Date: 2016-01-25 Impact factor: 3.845
Authors: Joshua D Kaggie; Surrin Deen; Dimitri A Kessler; Mary A McLean; Guido Buonincontri; Rolf F Schulte; Helen Addley; Evis Sala; James Brenton; Martin J Graves; Ferdia A Gallagher Journal: IEEE Trans Radiat Plasma Med Sci Date: 2019-03-15