Kenichiro Sato1, Noriaki Yuasa2, Miri Fujita3, Yasuyoshi Fukushima4. 1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Kyoaikai Hospital, Hakodate, Japan. Electronic address: tomotakusyu@yahoo.co.jp. 2. Department of Radiology, Steel Memorial Muroran Hospital, Muroran, Japan. 3. Department of Pathology, Steel Memorial Muroran Hospital, Muroran, Japan. 4. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Kyoaikai Hospital, Hakodate, Japan.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study investigated the clinical usefulness of diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) and the apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) value for preoperative differentiation between uterine leiomyoma and leiomyosarcoma. STUDY DESIGN: This study included 10 lesions from 5 patients with pelvic leiomyosarcoma and 83 leiomyoma nodules from 76 patients, as identified by postoperative pathological examination (1 autopsy). All magnetic resonance examinations were performed with a 1.5-T superconductive magnetic resonance unit. RESULTS: The leiomyosarcoma lesions were readily apparent via DWI, presenting as an intermediate- to high-intensity area in the uterine wall. All low-intensity areas presented as leiomyoma nodules. The mean ADC value for the 10 leiomyosarcoma lesions was 0.791 ± 0.145 (×10(-3) mm(2)/s), significantly lower than that of the leiomyoma nodules that presented with intermediate-intensity areas, 1.472 ± 0.285 (×10(-3) mm(2)/s) (n = 41) (P < .001), and high-intensity areas (1.100 ± 0.343) (n = 9) (P = .03). Additionally, in this study, the highest ADC value for a leiomyosarcoma was 1.095, with an intermediate DWI intensity. Based on these results, we classified the patients into 2 groups: low-risk group (barely any leiomyosarcoma risk) and high-risk group. Analyses comparing the 2 groups yielded the following: sensitivity, 100%; specificity, 94.0%; positive predictive value, 66.7%; negative predictive value, 100%; and accuracy, 94.6%. CONCLUSION: We suggest that this modality using a combination of signal intensity on DWI and ADC value is very effective, simple, and easy to apply clinically for differential diagnosis of leiomyosarcoma and myoma.
OBJECTIVE: This study investigated the clinical usefulness of diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) and the apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) value for preoperative differentiation between uterine leiomyoma and leiomyosarcoma. STUDY DESIGN: This study included 10 lesions from 5 patients with pelvic leiomyosarcoma and 83 leiomyoma nodules from 76 patients, as identified by postoperative pathological examination (1 autopsy). All magnetic resonance examinations were performed with a 1.5-T superconductive magnetic resonance unit. RESULTS: The leiomyosarcoma lesions were readily apparent via DWI, presenting as an intermediate- to high-intensity area in the uterine wall. All low-intensity areas presented as leiomyoma nodules. The mean ADC value for the 10 leiomyosarcoma lesions was 0.791 ± 0.145 (×10(-3) mm(2)/s), significantly lower than that of the leiomyoma nodules that presented with intermediate-intensity areas, 1.472 ± 0.285 (×10(-3) mm(2)/s) (n = 41) (P < .001), and high-intensity areas (1.100 ± 0.343) (n = 9) (P = .03). Additionally, in this study, the highest ADC value for a leiomyosarcoma was 1.095, with an intermediate DWI intensity. Based on these results, we classified the patients into 2 groups: low-risk group (barely any leiomyosarcoma risk) and high-risk group. Analyses comparing the 2 groups yielded the following: sensitivity, 100%; specificity, 94.0%; positive predictive value, 66.7%; negative predictive value, 100%; and accuracy, 94.6%. CONCLUSION: We suggest that this modality using a combination of signal intensity on DWI and ADC value is very effective, simple, and easy to apply clinically for differential diagnosis of leiomyosarcoma and myoma.
Authors: K Tahara; K Yamashita; A Hiwatashi; O Togao; K Kikuchi; M Endo; H Otsuka; Y Oda; H Honda Journal: Clin Neuroradiol Date: 2015-07-14 Impact factor: 3.649
Authors: Fong W Liu; Valerie B Galvan-Turner; Krista S Pfaendler; Teresa C Longoria; Robert E Bristow Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2015-01-09 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Ioannis Kalogiannidis; Thomas Stavrakis; Themistoklis Dagklis; Stamatios Petousis; Christina Nikolaidou; Ioannis Venizelos; David Rousso Journal: Oncol Lett Date: 2015-12-28 Impact factor: 2.967
Authors: Ann Peters; Amanda M Sadecky; Daniel G Winger; Richard S Guido; Ted T M Lee; Suketu M Mansuria; Nicole M Donnellan Journal: Int J Gynecol Cancer Date: 2017-07 Impact factor: 3.437
Authors: Rosanne M Kho; Vrunda B Desai; Peter E Schwartz; Jason D Wright; Cary P Gross; Lindsey M Hutchison; Francis P Boscoe; Haiqun Lin; Xiao Xu Journal: J Minim Invasive Gynecol Date: 2021-07-13 Impact factor: 4.137