AJR Custom publishing of AJR articles and ARRS Cat. Course
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


This Article
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Rieber, A.
Right arrow Articles by Brambs, H.-J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Rieber, A.
Right arrow Articles by Brambs, H.-J.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
AJR 2001; 177:123-129
© American Roentgen Ray Society


Preoperative Diagnosis of Ovarian Tumors with MR Imaging

Comparison with Transvaginal Sonography, Positron Emission Tomography, and Histologic Findings

Andrea Rieber1, Karin Nüssle1, Iris Stöhr2, Dieter Grab2, Sabine Fenchel3, Rolf Kreienberg2, S. N. Reske3 and Hans-Juergen Brambs1

1 Department of Diagnostic Radiology, University of Ulm, Robert-Koch-Str. 8, 89081 Ulm, Germany.
2 Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Ulm, Prittwitzstr. 43, 89081 Ulm, Germany.
3 Department of Nuclear Medicine, University of Ulm, 89081 Ulm, Germany.

OBJECTIVE. Our study evaluated the diagnostic performance of MR imaging compared with that of transvaginal sonography and positron emission tomography (PET) in patients with clinically asymptomatic adnexal findings. An additional goal was to determine whether the combination of the three methods enhanced their diagnostic accuracy.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS. Included in the study were 103 women with suspicious adnexal findings on sonography. Patients underwent transvaginal sonography, MR imaging, and PET within 3 weeks of the initial sonography. For MR imaging, axial and sagittal T1-weighted gradient-echo sequences (unenhanced and enhanced) and T2-weighted turbo-spin-echo sequences were acquired. Transvaginal sonography was performed with a 7.5-MHz transducer head. For PET, a modern full-ring scanner was used. The results of diagnostic imaging techniques were first evaluated separately, and reviewers were blinded to the results of other methods. Finally, a second session resulted in a consensus diagnosis based on the findings of all three methods. Results of histology were considered the gold standard.

RESULTS. Histology revealed 12 malignant and 91 benign ovarian tumors. The following data were calculated for MR imaging, transvaginal sonography, PET, and consensus diagnosis: sensitivities, 83%, 92%, 58%, 92%; specificities, 84%, 59%, 78%, 84%; diagnostic accuracies, 83%, 63%, 76%, 85%, respectively. MR imaging, particularly with contrast-enhanced fat-saturated T1-weighted sequences, was found to correctly reveal dermoid and endometrial cysts. All three methods had false-negative findings with borderline tumors.

CONCLUSION. Transvaginal sonography is the diagnostic method of choice as a screening technique for ovarian processes. Suspicious findings on transvaginal sonography should be confirmed on MR imaging. If MR imaging confirms a dermoid or endometrial cyst, further diagnostic procedures may be unnecessary. In all other cases, a surgical evaluation must be considered.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
RadiologyHome page
T. Tsujikawa, Y. Yoshida, T. Mori, T. Kurokawa, Y. Fujibayashi, F. Kotsuji, and H. Okazawa
Uterine Tumors: Pathophysiologic Imaging with 16{alpha}-[18F]fluoro-17{beta}-estradiol and 18F Fluorodeoxyglucose PET--Initial Experience
Radiology, August 1, 2008; 248(2): 599 - 605.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
ImagingHome page
M V Pakkal and M Balogun
Imaging of ovarian cancer
Imaging, August 1, 2006; 18(1): 20 - 27.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
RadiologyHome page
K. Kinkel, Y. Lu, A. Mehdizade, M.-F. Pelte, and H. Hricak
Indeterminate Ovarian Mass at US: Incremental Value of Second Imaging Test for Characterization--Meta-Analysis and Bayesian Analysis
Radiology, July 1, 2005; 236(1): 85 - 94.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Ann OncolHome page
R. Fauvet, J. Boccara, C. Dufournet, C. Poncelet, and E. Darai
Laparoscopic management of borderline ovarian tumors: results of a French multicenter study
Ann. Onc., March 1, 2005; 16(3): 403 - 410.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Am. J. Roentgenol.Home page
N. M. deSouza, R. O'Neill, G. A. McIndoe, R. Dina, and W. P. Soutter
Borderline Tumors of the Ovary: CT and MRI Features and Tumor Markers in Differentiation from Stage I Disease
Am. J. Roentgenol., March 1, 2005; 184(3): 999 - 1003.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
RadioGraphicsHome page
P. J. Woodward, K. Hosseinzadeh, and J. S. Saenger
From the Archives of the AFIP: Radiologic Staging of Ovarian Carcinoma with Pathologic Correlation
RadioGraphics, January 1, 2004; 24(1): 225 - 246.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2001 by the American Roentgen Ray Society.