Diagnostic interpretation of non-contrast qualitative MR imaging features for characterisation of uterine leiomyosarcoma.
Adult
Aged
Diagnosis, Differential
Evaluation Studies as Topic
Female
Humans
Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted
/ methods
Leiomyosarcoma
/ diagnostic imaging
Magnetic Resonance Imaging
/ methods
Middle Aged
Reproducibility of Results
Retrospective Studies
Uterine Neoplasms
/ diagnostic imaging
Uterus
/ diagnostic imaging
Journal
The British journal of radiology
ISSN: 1748-880X
Titre abrégé: Br J Radiol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 0373125
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 Sep 2021
01 Sep 2021
Historique:
pubmed:
12
6
2021
medline:
28
8
2021
entrez:
11
6
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To assess the value of non-contrast MRI features for characterisation of uterine leiomyosarcoma (LMS) and differentiation from atypical benign leiomyomas. This study included 57 atypical leiomyomas and 16 LMS which were referred pre-operatively for management review to the specialist gynaeoncology multidisciplinary team meeting. Non-contrast MRIs were retrospectively reviewed by five independent readers (three senior, two junior) and a 5-level Likert score (1-low/5-high) was assigned to each mass for likelihood of LMS. Evaluation of qualitative and quantitative MRI features was done using uni- and multivariable regression analysis. Inter-reader reliability for the assessment of MRI features was calculated by using Cohen's κ values. In the univariate analysis, interruption of the endometrial interface and irregular tumour shape had the highest odds ratios (ORs) (64.00, At any level of expertise as a radiologist reader, the loss of the normal endometrial stripe (either thickened or not seen) in a post-menopausal patient with a myometrial mass was highly likely to be LMS. This study demonstrates the potential utility of non-contrast MRI features in characterisation of LMS over atypical leiomyomas, and therefore influence on optimal management of these cases.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34111973
doi: 10.1259/bjr.20210115
pmc: PMC9327768
doi:
Types de publication
Evaluation Study
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
20210115Références
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2014 Apr;210(4):368.e1-368.e8
pubmed: 24368137
Springerplus. 2014 Nov 18;3:678
pubmed: 25520907
Eur Radiol. 2009 Nov;19(11):2756-64
pubmed: 19504102
Diagn Interv Imaging. 2019 Oct;100(10):619-634
pubmed: 31427216
Clin Radiol. 2019 Jul;74(7):571.e9-571.e18
pubmed: 31010584
Eur J Gynaecol Oncol. 2006;27(4):370-4
pubmed: 17009628
Diagn Interv Radiol. 2015 Jan-Feb;21(1):4-9
pubmed: 25347940
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2001 Dec;177(6):1307-11
pubmed: 11717072
Eur Radiol. 2008 Apr;18(4):723-30
pubmed: 17929022
J Magn Reson Imaging. 2016 Feb;43(2):333-42
pubmed: 26383110
Acad Radiol. 2018 Aug;25(8):993-1002
pubmed: 29422425
J Obstet Gynaecol. 2019 Jan;39(1):98-104
pubmed: 30207503
Eur Radiol. 2018 Aug;28(8):3125-3137
pubmed: 29492599
J Chiropr Med. 2016 Jun;15(2):155-63
pubmed: 27330520
Healthcare (Basel). 2019 Dec 05;7(4):
pubmed: 31817500
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2018 Dec;211(6):1405-1415
pubmed: 30354268
Radiology. 2020 Nov;297(2):361-371
pubmed: 32930650
Springerplus. 2015 Sep 17;4:520
pubmed: 26405640
Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2011 Apr;113(1):3-13
pubmed: 21345435
Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2015 Jun;25(5):850-7
pubmed: 25853381
Eur J Radiol. 2019 Jun;115:39-45
pubmed: 31084757
Abdom Radiol (NY). 2017 Jun;42(6):1762-1772
pubmed: 28246921
Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2018 Jan;34(2):172-179
pubmed: 29642961
Eur Radiol. 2017 Jul;27(7):2903-2915
pubmed: 27921159