Abstract
Background: Ovarian cancer is a leading cause of death in gynecological malignancies. Being the most common subtype in OEC, ovarian serous cancer also includes two subtypes: low grade serous ovarian cancer (LGSC) and high grade serous ovarian cancer (HGSC) (1). Purpose: The study aims to assess the capability of apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) histogram analysis and conventional measurements on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in differentiating between LGSC and HGSC.
Methods: We retrospectively recruited 38 patients with pathologically proven ovarian serous epithelial cancer. The mean ADC value was measured by one technician using two methods on post-processed workstation. The ADC value and histogram parameter difference between LGSC and HGSC groups were compared. The correlation between the ADC value and the Ki-67 expression was calculated across both groups.
Results: The repeatability of ADC measurements across two methods was good; the ROI method (ADC-roi) had better performance repeatability than the area method (ADC-area). The value of ADC-mean , ADC-min, ADC-max, and ADC-area significantly differed between both groups (p < 0.001). The value of ADC-area correlated inversely with ki-67 expression in the whole group (Pearson coefficient = -0.382, p = 0.02). The 3D computerized-diagnostic model had the best discriminative performance in determining HGSC than 2D and conventional ADC measurements. The 3D model yielded a sensitivity of 100%, a specificity of 95.45%, and an accuracy of 97.73%.
Conclusion: In the present study, the 3D ADC histogram model help differentiate HGSC from LGSC with a better performance than conventional ADC measurements.
Keywords: ovarian epithelial cancer, magnetic resonance imaging, apparent coefficient value, diffusion weighted imaging
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nrc4019] [PMID: 26493647]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2019.12.033] [PMID: 31969252]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11912-020-0872-5] [PMID: 31989304]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2014.12.029] [PMID: 25546113]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11912-017-0640-3] [PMID: 29105030]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2010.08.031] [PMID: 21047612]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.18632/oncotarget.20406] [PMID: 29088879]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.2214/AJR.17.18605] [PMID: 29547053]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11307-017-1073-y] [PMID: 28315203]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.mri.2018.06.016] [PMID: 29953932]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/RCT.0000000000000349] [PMID: 26720205]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-17-0339] [PMID: 29092951]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1148/rg.313105066] [PMID: 21571648]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/RMR.0b013e3180417d8e] [PMID: 17417086]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/gyno.2002.6627] [PMID: 12051866]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00404-013-2990-x] [PMID: 23934242]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2017.02.017] [PMID: 28583639]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/PAP.0000000000000243] [PMID: 31368906]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00330-017-4786-z] [PMID: 28289938]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jmri.25011] [PMID: 26201495]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jmri.24372] [PMID: 24677497]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0284185118786062] [PMID: 29969050]