Diffusion weighted imaging for the differential diagnosis of benign vs. malignant ovarian neoplasms

Meng,Xiang‑Fu; Zhu,Shi‑Cai; Sun,Shao‑Juan; Guo,Ji‑Cai; Wang,Xue

doi:10.3892/ol.2016.4445

Diffusion weighted imaging for the differential diagnosis of benign vs. malignant ovarian neoplasms

Authors:
- Xiang‑Fu Meng
- Shi‑Cai Zhu
- Shao‑Juan Sun
- Ji‑Cai Guo
- Xue Wang
View Affiliations

Affiliations: Department of Radiology, Linyi Traditional Chinese Medicine Hospital, Linyi, Shandong 276003, P.R. China, Department of Respiratory Medicine, Linyi Traditional Chinese Medicine Hospital, Linyi, Shandong 276003, P.R. China, Department of Ultrasound, Linyi Traditional Chinese Medicine Hospital, Linyi, Shandong 276003, P.R. China
Published online on: April 18, 2016 https://doi.org/10.3892/ol.2016.4445
Pages: 3795-3802

Metrics: Total Views: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )

Metrics: Total PDF Downloads: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )

Cited By (CrossRef): 0 citations Loading Articles...

Abstract

In order to assess the diagnostic accuracy of diffusion weighted imaging (DWI) in differentiating between benign and malignant ovarian neoplasms, a systemic meta‑analysis was conducted. Relevant studies were retrieved from scientific literature databases, including the PubMed, Wiley, EBSCO, Ovid, Web of Science, Wanfang, China National Knowledge Infrastructure and VIP databases. Following a multi‑step screening and study selection process, the relevant data was extracted for use in the present study. Statistical analyses were performed using Meta‑disc software version 1.4 and STATA statistical software version 12.0. A total of 285 articles were retrieved from the database searches. Following a careful screening process, 10 case‑control studies were selected for the present meta‑analysis. The 10 studies investigated the efficacy of DWI in diagnosing ovarian neoplasms, and included a combined total of 1,159 subjects, of which 559 patients had malignant lesions and 600 had benign lesions. The results showed that the pooled sensitivity, pooled specificity, pooled positive likelihood ratio, pooled negative likelihood ratio, pooled diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) and area under the curve of the summary receiver operating characteristics curve of DWI for differentiating between benign and malignant ovarian neoplasms were 0.93, 0.89, 7.58, 0.10, 85.33 and 0.95, respectively. A subgroup analysis based on ethnicity revealed no significant difference between Asians and Caucasians. Another subgroup analysis by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) type showed that the DORs for GE Healthcare Life Sciences and Siemens AG machines were 100.76 [95% confidence interval (CI), 65.28‑155.53] and 30.85 (95% CI, 10.40‑91.53), respectively; this indicates that the diagnostic efficiency of the GE Healthcare Life Sciences MRI is superior compared with the Siemens AG MRI. The DWI demonstrated an excellent diagnostic performance in discriminating between benign and malignant ovarian neoplasms, and predicted the surgical outcome in ovarian neoplasms.

View Figures

View References

1	Zeng ST, Guo L, Liu SK, Wang DH, Xi J, Huang P, Liu DT, Gao JF, Feng J and Zhang L: Egg consumption is associated with increased risk of ovarian cancer: Evidence from a meta-analysis of observational studies. Clin Nutr. 34:635–641. 2015. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
2	Ahmed N, Abubaker K and Findlay JK: Ovarian cancer stem cells: Molecular concepts and relevance as therapeutic targets. Mol Aspects Med. 39:110–125. 2014. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
3	Lengyel E: Ovarian cancer development and metastasis. Am J Pathol. 177:1053–1064. 2010. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
4	Kipps E, Tan DS and Kaye SB: Meeting the challenge of ascites in ovarian cancer: New avenues for therapy and research. Nat Rev Cancer. 13:273–282. 2013. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
5	Conic I, Dimov I, Tasic-Dimov D, Djordjevic B and Stefanovic V: Ovarian epithelial cancer stem cells. ScientificWorldJournal. 11:1243–1269. 2011. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
6	Bristow RE, Puri I and Chi DS: Cytoreductive surgery for recurrent ovarian cancer: A meta-analysis. Gynecol Oncol. 112:265–274. 2009. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
7	Forstner R, Sala E, Kinkel K and Spencer JA: European Society of Urogenital Radiology: ESUR guidelines: Ovarian cancer staging and follow-up. Eur Radiol. 20:2773–2780. 2010. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
8	Kumar Dhingra V, Kand P and Basu S: Impact of FDG-PET and -PET/CT imaging in the clinical decision-making of ovarian carcinoma: An evidence-based approach. Women's Health (Lond Engl). 8:191–203. 2012. View Article : Google Scholar
9	Michielsen K, Vergote I, de Op Beeck K, Amant F, Leunen K, Moerman P, Deroose C, Souverijns G, Dymarkowski S, De Keyzer F and Vandecaveye V: Whole-body MRI with diffusion-weighted sequence for staging of patients with suspected ovarian cancer: A clinical feasibility study in comparison to CT and FDG-PET/CT. Eur Radiol. 24:889–901. 2014. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
10	Low RN and Gurney J: Diffusion-weighted MRI (DWI) in the oncology patient: Value of breathhold DWI compared to unenhanced and gadolinium-enhanced MRI. J Magn Reson Imaging. 25:848–858. 2007. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
11	Low RN, Sebrechts CP, Barone RM and Muller W: Diffusion-weighted MRI of peritoneal tumors: Comparison with conventional MRI and surgical and histopathologic findings - a feasibility study. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 193:461–470. 2009. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
12	Espada M, Garcia-Flores JR, Jimenez M, Alvarez-Moreno E, De Haro M, Gonzalez-Cortijo L, Hernandez-Cortes G, Martinez-Vega V and De La Sainz Cuesta R: Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging evaluation of intra-abdominal sites of implants to predict likelihood of suboptimal cytoreductive surgery in patients with ovarian carcinoma. Eur Radiol. 23:2636–2642. 2013. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
13	Low RN and Barone RM: Combined diffusion-weighted and gadolinium-enhanced MRI can accurately predict the peritoneal cancer index preoperatively in patients being considered for cytoreductive surgical procedures. Ann Surg Oncol. 19:1394–1401. 2012. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
14	White NS, McDonald CR, Farid N, Kuperman JM, Kesari S and Dale AM: Improved conspicuity and delineation of high-grade primary and metastatic brain tumors using ‘restriction spectrum imaging’: Quantitative comparison with high B-value DWI and ADC. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 34:958–964. 2013. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
15	Testa ML, Chojniak R, Sene LS, Damascena AS, Guimarães MD, Szklaruk J and Marchiori E: Is DWI/ADC a useful tool in the characterization of focal hepatic lesions suspected of malignancy? PLoS One. 9:e1019442014. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
16	Li SP and Padhani AR: Tumor response assessments with diffusion and perfusion MRI. J Magn Reson Imaging. 35:745–763. 2012. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
17	Galea N, Cantisani V and Taouli B: Liver lesion detection and characterization: Role of diffusion-weighted imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging. 37:1260–1276. 2013. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
18	Soussan M, Des Guetz G, Barrau V, Aflalo-Hazan V, Pop G, Mehanna Z, Rust E, Aparicio T, Douard R, Benamouzig R, et al: Comparison of FDG-PET/CT and MR with diffusion-weighted imaging for assessing peritoneal carcinomatosis from gastrointestinal malignancy. Eur Radiol. 22:1479–1487. 2012. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
19	Satoh Y, Ichikawa T, Motosugi U, Kimura K, Sou H, Sano K and Araki T: Diagnosis of peritoneal dissemination: Comparison of 18F-FDG PET/CT, diffusion-weighted MRI, and contrast-enhanced MDCT. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 196:447–453. 2011. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
20	Whiting P, Rutjes AW, Reitsma JB, Bossuyt PM and Kleijnen J: The development of QUADAS: A tool for the quality assessment of studies of diagnostic accuracy included in systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol. 3:252003. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
21	Pfeiffer KA, McIver KL, Dowda M, Almeida MJ and Pate RR: Validation and calibration of the Actical accelerometer in preschool children. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 38:152–157. 2006. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
22	Higgins JP and Thompson SG: Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat Med. 21:1539–1558. 2002. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
23	Walter SD: Properties of the summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curve for diagnostic test data. Stat Med. 21:1237–1256. 2002. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
24	Deeks JJ, Macaskill P and Irwig L: The performance of tests of publication bias and other sample size effects in systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy was assessed. J Clin Epidemiol. 58:882–893. 2005. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
25	Kierans AS, Bennett GL, Mussi TC, Babb JS, Rusinek H, Melamed J and Rosenkrantz AB: Characterization of malignancy of adnexal lesions using ADC entropy: Comparison with mean ADC and qualitative DWI assessment. J Magn Reson Imaging. 37:164–171. 2013. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
26	Zhang P, Cui Y, Li W, Ren G, Chu C and Wu X: Diagnostic accuracy of diffusion-weighted imaging with conventional MR imaging for differentiating complex solid and cystic ovarian tumors at 1.5T. World J Surg Oncol. 10:2372012. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
27	Cui YF, Li WH, Zhu MJ, Wang DB, Zhang P, Zhang ZY and Chu CT: Clinical application and research of diffusion weighted MR imaging in complex ovarian tumors. Zhongguo Linchuang Yixue Yingxiang Zazhi. 12(856): 859–869. 2012.(In Chinese).
28	Zhang W, Zou S, Shen DH and Tong YX: The value of MR diffusion-weighted imaging combined with serum CA125 in the qualitative diagnosis of ovarian occupying lesion. Yixue Yingxiangxue Zazhi. 8:1348–1353. 2012.(In Chinese).
29	Li WH, Chu C, Cui Y, Zhang P and Zhu M: Diffusion-weighted MRI: A useful technique to discriminate benign versus malignant ovarian surface epithelial tumors with solid and cystic components. Abdom Imaging. 37:897–903. 2012. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
30	Yuan XC, Wang X, Yao G, Zheng L and Hu Y: The value of 3.0T MRI for the diagnosis of the ovarian tumor. Shiyong Fangshexue Zazhi. 27(1695): 1698–1712. 2011.(In Chinese).
31	Han DM, Yang XP, Wang HP and Li YX: Comparative study of CT and MRI in the diagnosis of ovarian neoplasms. Zhongguo Linchuang Yixue Yingxiang Zazhi. 16:441–443. 2005.(In Chinese).
32	Ferlay J, Parkin DM and Steliarova-Foucher E: Estimates of cancer incidence and mortality in Europe in 2008. Eur J Cancer. 46:765–781. 2010. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
33	Decker G, Mürtz P, Gieseke J, Träber F, Block W, Sprinkart AM, Leitzen C, Buchstab T, Lütter C, Schüller H, et al: Intensity-modulated radiotherapy of the prostate: dynamic ADC monitoring by DWI at 3.0 T. Radiother Oncol. 113:115–120. 2014. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
34	Ginat DT, Mangla R, Yeaney G, Johnson M and Ekholm S: Diffusion-weighted imaging for differentiating benign from malignant skull lesions and correlation with cell density. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 198:W597–601. 2012. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
35	Rechichi G, Galimberti S, Signorelli M, Franzesi CT, Perego P, Valsecchi MG and Sironi S: Endometrial cancer: Correlation of apparent diffusion coefficient with tumor grade, depth of myometrial invasion, and presence of lymph node metastases. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 197:256–262. 2011. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI