The diagnostic value of magnetic resonance imaging in differentiating benign and malignant pediatric ovarian tumors.
Benign
Children
Magnetic resonance imaging
Malignant
Ovarian preservation
Ovaries
Tumor
Journal
Pediatric radiology
ISSN: 1432-1998
Titre abrégé: Pediatr Radiol
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 0365332
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
03 2021
03 2021
Historique:
received:
14
04
2020
accepted:
04
10
2020
revised:
21
07
2020
pubmed:
14
11
2020
medline:
16
10
2021
entrez:
13
11
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The diagnostic workup of ovarian tumors in children and adolescents is challenging because preserving fertility, in addition to oncological safety, is of particular importance in this population. Therefore, a thorough preoperative assessment of ovarian tumors is required. To investigate the diagnostic value of MR imaging in differentiating benign from malignant ovarian tumors in children and adolescents. We conducted a retrospective study of all children and adolescents age <18 years who underwent MR imaging of ovarian tumors during 2014-2019 at a pediatric specialty center. Two radiologists reviewed all MR imaging. We used pathology reports to define the histological diagnosis. We included 30 girls who underwent MR imaging for an ovarian tumor. Signs indicative for malignancy were tumors with a diameter ≥8 cm, with areas of contrast enhancement, irregular margins, extracapsular tumor growth, and ascites. All benign and malignant ovarian tumors were correctly identified by the radiologists. The diagnostic utility of MR imaging in classifying ovarian tumors in children and adolescents as benign or malignant is promising and might aid in defining the indication for ovarian-sparing versus non-ovarian-sparing surgery. We recommend evaluating these tumors with MR imaging prior to deciding on surgical treatment.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
The diagnostic workup of ovarian tumors in children and adolescents is challenging because preserving fertility, in addition to oncological safety, is of particular importance in this population. Therefore, a thorough preoperative assessment of ovarian tumors is required.
OBJECTIVE
To investigate the diagnostic value of MR imaging in differentiating benign from malignant ovarian tumors in children and adolescents.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
We conducted a retrospective study of all children and adolescents age <18 years who underwent MR imaging of ovarian tumors during 2014-2019 at a pediatric specialty center. Two radiologists reviewed all MR imaging. We used pathology reports to define the histological diagnosis.
RESULTS
We included 30 girls who underwent MR imaging for an ovarian tumor. Signs indicative for malignancy were tumors with a diameter ≥8 cm, with areas of contrast enhancement, irregular margins, extracapsular tumor growth, and ascites. All benign and malignant ovarian tumors were correctly identified by the radiologists.
CONCLUSION
The diagnostic utility of MR imaging in classifying ovarian tumors in children and adolescents as benign or malignant is promising and might aid in defining the indication for ovarian-sparing versus non-ovarian-sparing surgery. We recommend evaluating these tumors with MR imaging prior to deciding on surgical treatment.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33185738
doi: 10.1007/s00247-020-04871-2
pii: 10.1007/s00247-020-04871-2
pmc: PMC7897193
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
427-434Références
Insights Imaging. 2016 Feb;7(1):21-41
pubmed: 26671276
Arch Surg. 1993 Aug;128(8):849-53; discussion 853-4
pubmed: 8343057
Radiographics. 2012 Oct;32(6):1751-73
pubmed: 23065168
Gynecol Oncol. 2005 Oct;99(1):248-50
pubmed: 16095676
Pediatr Hematol Oncol. 2015 Apr;32(3):199-206
pubmed: 24274683
Eur Radiol. 2017 Jun;27(6):2248-2257
pubmed: 27770228
Radiology. 2000 Jan;214(1):39-46
pubmed: 10644099
J Pediatr Surg. 2014 Jan;49(1):144-7; discussion 147-8
pubmed: 24439599
Eur Radiol. 2020 Feb;30(2):1166-1181
pubmed: 31529256
Pediatr Radiol. 2018 Aug;48(9):1324-1336
pubmed: 30078040
Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2014 Feb;289(2):357-64
pubmed: 23934242
Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2016 Apr;293(4):695-700
pubmed: 26894303
Lancet. 2012 Aug 4;380(9840):499-505
pubmed: 22681860
Clin Pediatr (Phila). 1999 Oct;38(10):573-7
pubmed: 10544863
Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am. 2017 Aug;25(3):521-543
pubmed: 28668158
Ultrasound Q. 2010 Sep;26(3):121-31
pubmed: 20823748
J Oncol. 2012;2012:481806
pubmed: 22536238
Pediatrics. 2019 Jul;144(1):
pubmed: 31164439
J Magn Reson Imaging. 2013 Feb;37(2):265-81
pubmed: 23355430
Radiographics. 2002 Nov-Dec;22(6):1305-25
pubmed: 12432104
Radiographics. 2000 Sep-Oct;20(5):1445-70
pubmed: 10992033
Gynecol Oncol. 2016 Oct;143(1):93-97
pubmed: 27421754
J Indian Assoc Pediatr Surg. 2014 Oct;19(4):189-94
pubmed: 25336799
J Pediatr Adolesc Gynecol. 2019 Feb;32(1):57-63
pubmed: 30205159
BMJ. 1999 Jan 16;318(7177):193-4
pubmed: 9888930
J Surg Res. 2009 Sep;156(1):45-9
pubmed: 19592022
J Pediatr Surg. 2019 Mar;54(3):369-377
pubmed: 30220452
Obstet Gynecol. 2015 Mar;125(3):611-615
pubmed: 25730223