4.7 Article

Complex adnexal masses: Detection and characterization with MR imaging - Multivariate analysis

期刊

RADIOLOGY
卷 214, 期 1, 页码 39-46

出版社

RADIOLOGICAL SOC NORTH AMER
DOI: 10.1148/radiology.214.1.r00ja3939

关键词

endometriosis; ovary, cysts; ovary, neoplasms; pelvis, MR; receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve; teratoma

向作者/读者索取更多资源

PURPOSE: To evaluate the accuracy of magnetic resonance (MR) imaging in the detection and characterization of complex adnexal masses, with particular reference to the findings predictive of malignancy, role of gadolinium-enhanced contrast material, and observer variability. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Preoperative MR imaging of the pelvis was performed in 128 consecutive patients with clinically or ultrasonographically detected complex adnexal masses. Histopathologic examination demonstrated 187 masses, 96 of which were malignant. MR imaging studies were prospectively and independently reviewed by two radiologists, one of whom reevaluated the studies after a 6-month interval. The predictive value of MR imaging findings was determined with multivariate logistic regression analysis. The value of gadolinium enhancement was assessed by using receiver operating characteristic analysis. Inter- and intraobserver variabilities were assessed by using weighted kappa statistics. RESULTS: Gadolinium-enhanced MR imaging depicted 176 (94%) of 187 adnexal masses; with an overall accuracy for the diagnosis of malignancy of 93%. The MR imaging findings that were most predictive of malignancy were necrosis in a solid lesion (odds ratio, 107) and vegetations in a cystic legion (odds ratio, 40). Use of gadolinium-based contrast material contributed significantly to lesion characterization Interobserver (kappa, 0.79-0.85) and intraobserver (kappa, 0.84-0.86) agreement were excellent. CONCLUSION: Gadolinium-enhanced MR imaging is highly accurate in the detection and characterization of complex adnexal masses, with excellent inter- and intraobserver agreement.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据