Alessandro Marro1, Lisa M Allen2, Sari L Kives2, Rahim Moineddin3, Govind B Chavhan4. 1. Department of Diagnostic Imaging, The Hospital for Sick Children and Medical Imaging, University of Toronto, 555 University Ave., Toronto, ON, M5G 1X8, Canada. 2. Department of Pediatric Gynecology, The Hospital for Sick Children, University Of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada. 3. Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada. 4. Department of Diagnostic Imaging, The Hospital for Sick Children and Medical Imaging, University of Toronto, 555 University Ave., Toronto, ON, M5G 1X8, Canada. drgovindchavhan@yahoo.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There are no studies on utility of MRI in management of pediatric adnexal masses. OBJECTIVE: To determine the diagnostic and therapeutic impact of pelvic MRI in adnexal masses in children and adolescents. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We included 32 females age 18 years and younger who had adnexal masses and who underwent both pelvic ultrasound (US) and MRI. A radiologist retrospectively reviewed US and MR images and created a standard radiologic report for each patient. In a prospective theoretical fashion, two pediatric gynecologists reviewed the clinical data and US report for each patient and indicated conservative versus surgical management; in surgical cases the options were laparoscopy versus laparotomy, midline versus Pfannenstiel incision, and oophorectomy versus cystectomy. Subsequently, the gynecologists were presented the MRI report and were asked to indicate their treatment options again. A binomial test was conducted to determine the effect of adding MRI findings to the management plan. RESULTS: The addition of MRI significantly changed management in 10 of 32 patients (P=0.0322), with a change in surgical versus conservative treatment in 5, a change in laparotomy vs. laparoscopy in 2, and a change from oophorectomy to cystectomy along with change in incision in 3 cases. This was based on additional information provided by MRI regarding the nature of the mass in 8 cases and origin of the mass in 2 cases. CONCLUSION: Preoperative pelvic MRI findings might change the surgical management of pediatric patients with adnexal masses, so it is a valuable addition to the conventional workup in the clinical management.
BACKGROUND: There are no studies on utility of MRI in management of pediatric adnexal masses. OBJECTIVE: To determine the diagnostic and therapeutic impact of pelvic MRI in adnexal masses in children and adolescents. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We included 32 females age 18 years and younger who had adnexal masses and who underwent both pelvic ultrasound (US) and MRI. A radiologist retrospectively reviewed US and MR images and created a standard radiologic report for each patient. In a prospective theoretical fashion, two pediatric gynecologists reviewed the clinical data and US report for each patient and indicated conservative versus surgical management; in surgical cases the options were laparoscopy versus laparotomy, midline versus Pfannenstiel incision, and oophorectomy versus cystectomy. Subsequently, the gynecologists were presented the MRI report and were asked to indicate their treatment options again. A binomial test was conducted to determine the effect of adding MRI findings to the management plan. RESULTS: The addition of MRI significantly changed management in 10 of 32 patients (P=0.0322), with a change in surgical versus conservative treatment in 5, a change in laparotomy vs. laparoscopy in 2, and a change from oophorectomy to cystectomy along with change in incision in 3 cases. This was based on additional information provided by MRI regarding the nature of the mass in 8 cases and origin of the mass in 2 cases. CONCLUSION: Preoperative pelvic MRI findings might change the surgical management of pediatric patients with adnexal masses, so it is a valuable addition to the conventional workup in the clinical management.
Entities:
Keywords:
Adnexal mass; Children; Magnetic resonance imaging; Ovarian mass; Ultrasound
Authors: Saroja Adusumilli; Hero K Hussain; Elaine M Caoili; William J Weadock; John P Murray; Timothy D Johnson; Qixuan Chen; Benoit Desjardins Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2006-09 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Elena S Ratner; Lawrence H Staib; Sarah N Cross; Rhoda Raji; Peter E Schwartz; Shirley M McCarthy Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2015-03 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: R W Luijendijk; J Jeekel; R K Storm; P J Schutte; W C Hop; A C Drogendijk; F J Huikeshoven Journal: Ann Surg Date: 1997-04 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: H Hricak; C B Powell; K K Yu; E Washington; L L Subak; J L Stern; M G Cisternas; R L Arenson Journal: Radiology Date: 1996-02 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Donald G Mitchell; Marcia C Javitt; Phyllis Glanc; Genevieve L Bennett; Douglas L Brown; Theodore Dubinsky; Mukesh G Harisinghani; Robert D Harris; Neil S Horowitz; Pari V Pandharipande; Harpreet K Pannu; Ann E Podrasky; Henry D Royal; Thomas D Shipp; Cary Lynn Siegel; Lynn Simpson; Jade J Wong-You-Cheong; Carolyn M Zelop Journal: J Am Coll Radiol Date: 2013-11 Impact factor: 5.532
Authors: Sarah C Oltmann; Nilda Garcia; Robert Barber; Rong Huang; Barry Hicks; Anne Fischer Journal: J Pediatr Surg Date: 2010-01 Impact factor: 2.545
Authors: Lotte W E van Nimwegen; Annelies M C Mavinkurve-Groothuis; Ronald R de Krijger; Caroline C C Hulsker; Angelique J Goverde; József Zsiros; Annemieke S Littooij Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2019-09-16 Impact factor: 5.315