Microcystic pattern and shadowing are independent predictors of ovarian borderline tumors and cystadenofibromas in ultrasound.
Cystadenofibromas
Epithelial tumors
Ovary
Ultrasound
Journal
European radiology
ISSN: 1432-1084
Titre abrégé: Eur Radiol
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 9114774
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jan 2021
Jan 2021
Historique:
received:
27
02
2020
accepted:
24
07
2020
revised:
06
05
2020
pubmed:
12
8
2020
medline:
15
4
2021
entrez:
12
8
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To determine the sonographic characteristics of borderline tumors (BoTs) and cystadenofibromas (CAFs). Preoperative sonograms from consecutive patients who had at least one primary epithelial tumor in the adnexa were retrospectively collected. All tumors were described using the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis terminology. Ultrasound variables were tested using multinomial logistic regression after univariate analysis. A total of 650 patients were included in this study. Of these, 110 had a CAF, 128 had a BoT, 249 had a cystadenoma (CAD), and 163 had a cystadenocarcinoma (CAC). Nearly half of CAFs and more than half of BoTs and CACs appeared to be unilocular and multilocular solid on the ultrasound images, while CADs were predominantly uni- or multilocular (p < 0.001). Overall, shadowing was identified in 82/650 cases. Sixty-five of 110 (59.1%) CAFs exhibited an acoustic shadow, compared with only 4/249 (1.6%) in CADs, 7/128 (5.5%) in BoTs, and 6/163 (3.7%) in CACs (p < 0.001). Furthermore, 112/650 cases demonstrated microcystic pattern (MCP). Sixty-eight of 128 (53.1%) BoTs exhibited MCP, compared with only 5/249 (2.0%) in CADs, 19/163 (11.7%) in CACs, and 20/110 (18.2%) in CAFs (p < 0.001). Logistic regression analysis revealed that shadowing is an independent predictor of CAFs, while MCP is an independent predictor of BoTs. Sonographic findings for CAFs and BoTs were complex and partly overlapped with those for CACs. However, proper recognition and utilization of shadowing or MCP may help to correctly discriminate CAFs and BoTs. • Sonographic findings for borderline tumors and cystadenofibromas are complex and mimic malignancy. • Microcystic pattern and shadowing are independent predictors of borderline tumors and cystadenofibromas respectively.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32780208
doi: 10.1007/s00330-020-07113-z
pii: 10.1007/s00330-020-07113-z
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
45-54Références
Kurman RJ, Carcangiu ML, Herrington CS, Young RH (2014) WHO classification of tumours of female reproductive organs, 4rd edn. IARC, Lyon
Fischerova D, Zikan M, Dundr P, Cibula D (2012) Diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up of borderline ovarian tumors. Oncologist 17:1515–1533
doi: 10.1634/theoncologist.2012-0139
Cho SM, Byun JY, Rha SE et al (2004) CT and MRI findings of cystadenofibromas of the ovary. Eur Radiol 14:798–804
doi: 10.1007/s00330-003-2060-z
Shimizu S, Okano H, Ishitani K, Nomura H, Nishikawa T, Ohta H (2009) Ovarian cystadenofibroma with solid nodular components masqueraded as ovarian cancer. Arch Gynecol Obstet 279:709–711
doi: 10.1007/s00404-008-0785-2
Lee DH (2014) A case of mucinous cystadenofibroma of the ovary. Case Rep Obstet Gynecol 2014:1–4
doi: 10.1155/2014/130530
Valentin L, Ameye L, Savelli L et al (2011) Adnexal masses difficult to classify as benign or malignant using subjective assessment of gray-scale and Doppler ultrasound findings: logistic regression models do not help. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 38:456–465
doi: 10.1002/uog.9030
Yazbek J, Raju KS, Ben-Nagi J, Holland T, Hillaby K, Jurkovic D (2007) Accuracy of ultrasound subjective ‘pattern recognition’ for the diagnosis of borderline ovarian tumors. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 29:489–495
doi: 10.1002/uog.4002
Granberg S, Wikland M, Jansson I (1989) Macroscopic characterization of ovarian tumors and relation to the histological diagnosis: criteria to be used for ultrasound evaluation. Gynecol Oncol 35:139–144
doi: 10.1016/0090-8258(89)90031-0
Smith-Bindman R, Poder L, Johnson E, Miglioretti DL (2019) Risk of malignant ovarian cancer based on ultrasonography findings in a large unselected population. JAMA Intern Med 179:71–77
doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.5113
Eskander RN, Randall LM, Berman ML, Tewari KS, Disaia PJ, Bristow RE (2011) Fertility preserving options in patients with gynecologic malignancies. Am J Obstet Gynecol 205:103–110
doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2011.01.025
Timmerman D, Valentin L, Bourne TH, Collins WP, Verrelst H, Vergote I (2000) Terms, definitions and measurements to describe the sonographic features of adnexal tumors: a consensus opinion from the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis (IOTA) Group. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 16:500–505
doi: 10.1046/j.1469-0705.2000.00287.x
Timor-Tritsch IE, Foley CE, Brandon C et al (2019) A new sonographic marker of borderline ovarian tumors: the microcystic pattern of papillary projections and solid components. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 54:395–402
doi: 10.1002/uog.20283
Valentin L, Ameye L, Testa A et al (2006) Ultrasound characteristics of different types of adnexal malignancies. Gynecol Oncol 102:41–48
doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2005.11.015
Fruscella E, Testa AC, Ferrandina G et al (2005) Ultrasound features of different histopathological subtypes of borderline ovarian tumors. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 26:644–650
doi: 10.1002/uog.2607
Timmerman D, Testa AC, Bourne T et al (2005) Logistic regression model to distinguish between the benign and malignant adnexal mass before surgery: a multicenter study by the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis Group. J Clin Oncol 23:8794–8801
doi: 10.1200/JCO.2005.01.7632
Sayasneh A, Kaijser J, Preisler J et al (2013) Multicenter prospective external validation of the diagnostic performance of IOTA simple descriptors and rules to characterize ovarian masses. Gynecol Oncol 130:140–146
doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2013.04.003
Kaijser J, Van Gorp T, Van Hoorde K et al (2013) A comparison between an ultrasound based prediction model (LR2) and the risk of ovarian malignancy algorithm (ROMA) to assess the risk of malignancy in women with an adnexal mass. Gynecol Oncol 129:377–383
doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2013.01.018
Van Calster B, Van Hoorde K, Valentin L et al (2014) Evaluating the risk of ovarian cancer before surgery using the ADNEX model to differentiate between benign, borderline, early and advanced stage invasive, and secondary metastatic tumours: prospective multicentre diagnostic study. BMJ 349:g5920
doi: 10.1136/bmj.g5920
Takeuchi M, Matsuzaki K, Harada M (2013) Ovarian adenofibromas and cystadenofibromas: magnetic resonance imaging findings including diffusion-weighted imaging. Acta Radiol 54:231–236
doi: 10.1258/ar.2012.120516
Alcázar JL, Errasti T, Mínguez JA, Galán MJ, García-Manero M, Ceamanos C (2001) Sonographic features of ovarian cystadenofibromas: spectrum of findings. J Ultrasound Med 20:915–919
doi: 10.7863/jum.2001.20.8.915
Tang YZ, Liyanage S, Narayanan P et al (2013) The MRI features of histologically proven ovarian cystadenofibromas-an assessment of the morphological and enhancement patterns. Eur Radiol 23:48–56
doi: 10.1007/s00330-012-2568-1
Valentin L, Ameye L, Jurkovic D et al (2006) Which extrauterine pelvic masses are difficult to correctly classify as benign or malignant on the basis of ultrasound findings and is there a way of making a correct diagnosis? Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 27:438–444
doi: 10.1002/uog.2707
Goldstein SR, Timor-Tritsch I, Monda S, Popliolek D, Monteagudo A (2009) Ultrasound appearance of cystadenofibroma: can we reduce surgical intervention? Abstract OC25.03. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 34(S1):49
doi: 10.1002/uog.6607
Goldstein SR, Timor-Tritsch IE, Monteagudo A, Monda S, Popiolek D (2015) Cystadenofibromas: can transvaginal ultrasound appearance reduce some surgical interventions? J Clin Ultrasound 43:393–396
doi: 10.1002/jcu.22241
Timor-Tritsch IE, Yoon E, Monteagudo A et al (2019) Ultrasound and histopathologic correlation of ovarian cystadenofibromas: diagnostic value of the “shadow sign”. J Ultrasound Med 38:2973–2978
doi: 10.1002/jum.15003
Sayasneh A, Ekechi C, Ferrara L et al (2015) The characteristic ultrasound features of specific types of ovarian pathology (review). Int J Oncol 46:445–458
doi: 10.3892/ijo.2014.2764
Virgilio BA, De Blasis I, Sladkevicius P et al (2019) Imaging of gynecological disease (16): clinical and ultrasound characteristics of serous cystadenofibromas in the adnexa. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 54:823–830
doi: 10.1002/uog.20277
Landolfo C, Valentin L, Franchi D et al (2018) Differences in ultrasound features of papillations in unilocular solid adnexal cysts a retrospective international multicenter study. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 52(2):269–278
doi: 10.1002/uog.18951