4.2 Article

Magnetic resonance evaluation of adnexal masses

Journal

ACTA RADIOLOGICA
Volume 49, Issue 6, Pages 700-709

Publisher

ROYAL SOC MEDICINE PRESS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/02841850802064995

Keywords

adnexal masses; genital; magnetic resonance imaging; ovarian tumor; pelvis

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Accurate evaluation of adnexal masses allows correct surgical procedure, avoiding unnecessary surgery. Purpose: To evaluate the accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in the diagnosis of malignancy of adnexal lesions. Material and Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the pelvic MRI scans of 161 patients with 199 surgically confirmed adnexal masses, between November 1998 and June 2005. The criteria for adnexal malignancy were contrast-enhanced solid lesions, contrast-enhanced solid components in mixed lesions (except those with low-signal-intensity solid components on T2-weighted imaging [T2WI]), contrast-enhanced papillary projections in cystic lesions (except those with low-signal-intensity papillary projections on T2WI), or septal thickness >= 3 mm. Ascites, peritoneal metastasis, and pelvic adenopathy were also regarded as criteria for malignancy. Results: On MRI evaluation, 97 adnexal lesions were malignant and 102 were nonmalignant. Thirty-two percent of patients with ascites had benign lesions. Histopathologic evaluation of the adnexal lesions showed that 83 were malignant (true positives), 100 were non-malignant (true negatives), and seven were uncertain malignant potential tumors; two were false negative and seven were false positive. The MRI sensitivity and specificity for malignancy were 98% and 93%, respectively. MRI reached an accuracy of 95%, with a positive predictive value of 0.92 and a negative predictive value of 0.98 for malignant adnexal lesions. The kappa coefficient was 0.906, indicating almost perfect agreement between MRI and histological results. Conclusion: MRI is an accurate method for evaluating the malignancy of adnexal lesions.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available