Ultrasound Characteristics of Cystadenofibromas: A Retrospective Multicenter Study.
Journal
Ultrasound quarterly
ISSN: 1536-0253
Titre abrégé: Ultrasound Q
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 8809459
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 Dec 2021
01 Dec 2021
Historique:
entrez:
2
12
2021
pubmed:
3
12
2021
medline:
15
12
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Cystadenofibromas (CAFs) are relatively rare benign ovarian tumors. This study was to describe the ultrasound (US) findings of CAFs. Preoperative US information of 86 CAFs was retrospectively collected. To better illustrate their characteristic, 173 cystadenomas (CADs), 103 borderline ovarian tumors (BOTs), and 129 cystadenocarcinomas (CACs) were recruited as match groups. Besides morphology evaluation, tumors were categorized by the Ovarian-Adnexal Reporting and Data System US system. Higher-risk stratification in CAFs was more often being seen than CADs (63% of CAFs classified as Ovarian-Adnexal Reporting and Data System 4 or 5 vs 35% in CADs). Cystadenofibromas more commonly appeared as unilocular or multilocular solid than CADs. Solid components presented in 59% of CAFs and papillary projections presented in 45%. More CAFs contained solid components and papillary projections than CADs (P < 0.0001). When compared with BOTs and CACs, less CAFs contained solid components (P < 0.017 and P < 0.0001). However, no significant difference was found in CAFs versus BOTs or CACs about the presence of papillary projections. Shadowing was identified in 58% of CAFs; however, in CADs, BOTs, and CACs, the proportion was 2%, 11%, and 11%, respectively. Presence of shadowing in CAFs was noticeably more than CADs, BOTs, and CACs (P < 0.017 or P < 0.0001). Similar to CADs, most CAFs were avascular (76%) and without ascites (99%), which were significantly different from BOTs and CACs. We concluded that the sonographic markers for CAFs that differ from malignant were presence of shadowing, avascular, and absence of ascites.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34855711
doi: 10.1097/RUQ.0000000000000506
pii: 00013644-202112000-00009
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
349-356Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Références
Cho SM, Byun JY, Rha SE, et al. CT and MRI findings of cystadenofibromas of the ovary. Eur Radiol. 2004;14:798–804.
Kurman RJ, Ellenson LH, Ronnett BM. Surface Epithelial Tumors of the Ovary. Blaustein's Pathology of the Female Genital Tract. Sixth ed. New York: Springer; 2011:703–758.
Alcázar JL, Errasti T, Mínguez JA, et al. Sonographic features of ovarian cystadenofibromas: spectrum of findings. J Ultrasound Med. 2001;20:915–919.
Lee DH. A case of mucinous cystadenofibroma of the ovary. Case Rep Obstet Gynecol. 2014;2014:130530.
Tang YZ, Liyanage S, Narayanan P, et al. The MRI features of histologically proven ovarian cystadenofibromas-an assessment of the morphological and enhancement patterns. Eur Radiol. 2013;23:48–56.
Valentin L, Ameye L, Savelli L, et al. Unilocular adnexal cysts with papillary projections but no other solid components: is there a diagnostic method that can classify them reliably as benign or malignant before surgery? Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2013;41:570–581.
Valentin L, Ameye L, Jurkovic D, et al. 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. 2006;27:438–444.
Timmerman D, Valentin L, Bourne TH, et al. 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. 2000;16:500–505.
Andreotti RF, Timmerman D, Strachowski LM, et al. O-RADS US risk stratification and management system: a consensus guideline from the ACR ovarian-adnexal reporting and data system committee. Radiology. 2020;294:168–185.
Kurman RJ, Carcangiu ML, Herrington CS, et al, eds. WHO Classification of Tumours of Female Reproductive Organs. Lyon: IARC; 2014.
Eskander RN, Randall LM, Berman ML, et al. Fertility preserving options in patients with gynecologic malignancies. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2011;205(2):103–110.
Christianson MS, Oktay K. Advances in fertility-preservation surgery: navigating new frontiers. Fertil Steril. 2019;112(3):438–445.
Scully RE. Recent progress in ovarian cancer. Hum Pathol. 1970;1:73–98.
Czernobilsky B, Borenstein R, Lancet M. Cystadenofibroma of the ovary. A clinicopathologic study of 34 cases and comparison with serous cystadenoma. Cancer. 1974;34:1971–1981.
Shimizu S, Okano H, Ishitani K, et al. Ovarian cystadenofibroma with solid nodular components masqueraded as ovarian cancer. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2009;279:709–711.
Kim KA, Park CM, Lee JH, et al. Benign ovarian tumors with solid and cystic components that mimic malignancy. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2004;182:1259–1265.
Alfuhaid TR, Rosen BP, Wilson SR. Low-malignant-potential tumor of the ovary: sonographic features with clinicopathologic correlation in 41 patients. Ultrasound Q. 2003;19(1):13–26.
Franchi D, Boveri S, Fruscio R, et al. Imaging in gynecological disease (8): ultrasound characteristics of recurrent borderline ovarian tumors. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2013;41:452–458.
Ma FH, Qiang JW, Zhang GF, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging for distinguishing ovarian clear cell carcinoma from high-grade serous carcinoma. J Ovarian Res. 2016;9:40.
Landolfo C, Valentin L, Franchi D, et al. Differences in ultrasound features of papillations in unilocular solid adnexal cysts a retrospective international multicenter study. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2018;52:269–278.
Van Calster B, Van Hoorde K, Valentin L, et al. 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. 2014;349:g5920.
Goldstein SR, Timor-Tritsch IE, Monteagudo A, et al. Cystadenofibromas: can transvaginal ultrasound appearance reduce some surgical interventions? J Clin Ultrasound. 2015;43:393–396.
Granberg S, Wikland M, Jansson I. Macroscopic characterization of ovarian tumors and the relation to the histological diagnosis: criteria to be used for ultrasound evaluation. Gynecol Oncol. 1989;35:139–144.
Smith-Bindman R, Poder L, Johnson E, et al. Risk of malignant ovarian cancer based on ultrasonography findings in a large unselected population. JAMA Intern Med. 2019;179:71–77.
Takeuchi M, Matsuzaki K, Harada M. Ovarian adenofibromas and cystadenofibromas: magnetic resonance imaging findings including diffusion-weighted imaging. Acta Radiol. 2013;54:231–236.
Atri M, Nazarnia S, Bret PM, et al. Endovaginal sonographic appearance of benign ovarian masses. Radiographics. 1994;14:747–760.
Outwater EK, Siegelman ES, Talerman A, et al. Ovarian fibromas and cystadenofibromas: MRI features of the fibrous component. J Magn Reson Imaging. 1997;7:465–471.
Paladini D, Testa A, Van Holsbeke C, et al. Imaging in gynecological disease (5): clinical and ultrasound characteristics in fibroma and fibrothecoma of the ovary. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2009;34:188–195.
Timor-Tritsch IE, Yoon E, Monteagudo A, et al. Ultrasound and histopathologic correlation of ovarian cystadenofibromas: diagnostic value of the “shadow sign”. J Ultrasound Med. 2019;38:2973–2978.
Virgilio BA, De Blasis I, Sladkevicius P, et al. Imaging in gynecological disease (16): clinical and ultrasound characteristics of serous cystadenofibromas in adnexa. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2019;54:823–830.