Primary versus secondary ovarian malignancy: Imaging findings of adnexal masses in the Radiology Diagnostic Oncology Group Study

被引:89
作者
Brown, DL
Zou, KH
Tempany, CMC
Frates, MC
Silverman, SG
McNeil, BJ
Kurtz, AB
机构
[1] Brigham & Womens Hosp, Dept Radiol, Boston, MA 02115 USA
[2] Harvard Univ, Sch Med, Dept Hlth Care Policy, Boston, MA 02115 USA
[3] Thomas Jefferson Univ Hosp, Philadelphia, PA 19107 USA
[4] Thomas Jefferson Univ, Jefferson Med Coll, Dept Radiol, Philadelphia, PA 19107 USA
关键词
ovary; CT; MR; neoplasms; US;
D O I
10.1148/radiology.219.1.r01ap28213
中图分类号
R8 [特种医学]; R445 [影像诊断学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100207 ; 1009 ;
摘要
PURPOSE: To analyze ultrasonographic (US), computed tomographic (CT), and magnetic resonance (MR) imaging features of primary and secondary ovarian malignant neoplasms to determine if there is any significant difference in their appearance. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Analysis of the multi-institutional Radiology Diagnostic Oncology Group data revealed 86 patients with primary ovarian carcinoma and 24 patients with a secondary ovarian neoplasm. Numerous imaging features that had been recorded for the adnexal masses with each imaging modality were reviewed and compared between primary and secondary malignant ovarian neoplasms. RESULTS: Of the imaging features assessed with all three modalities, multilocularity as determined at US (P =.02) or MR imaging (P =.01) was the only significant feature. At US, 30 (37%) of 81 primary ovarian cancers were multilocular, whereas only three (12%) of 24 metastatic neoplasms were multilocular. At MR imaging, 40 (74%) of 54 primary ovarian cancers were multilocular, whereas only five (36%)of 14 metastatic neoplasms were multilocular. Neither a predominately solid appearance nor bilaterality was significantly different between primary and secondary neoplasms. CONCLUSION: For malignant ovarian masses, multilocularity at MR imaging or US favors the diagnosis of primary ovarian malignancy rather than secondary neoplasm, but it is difficult to accurately distinguish between primary and secondary ovarian malignancies.
引用
收藏
页码:213 / 218
页数:6
相关论文
共 29 条
  • [1] Agresti A., 1990, CATEGORICAL DATA ANA, P59
  • [2] ATHEY PA, 1984, J CLIN ULTRASOUND, V12, P205, DOI 10.1002/jcu.1870120407
  • [3] Benign and malignant ovarian masses: Selection of the most discriminating gray-scale and Doppler sonographic features
    Brown, DL
    Doubilet, PM
    Miller, FH
    Frates, MC
    Laing, FC
    DiSalvo, DN
    Benson, CB
    Lerner, MH
    [J]. RADIOLOGY, 1998, 208 (01) : 103 - 110
  • [4] COMPUTED-TOMOGRAPHY OF KRUKENBERG TUMORS
    CHO, KC
    GOLD, BM
    [J]. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, 1985, 145 (02) : 285 - 288
  • [5] SONOGRAPHIC APPEARANCE OF KRUKENBERG TUMOR FROM GASTRIC-CARCINOMA
    CHOI, BI
    CHOO, IW
    HAN, MC
    KIM, CW
    [J]. GASTROINTESTINAL RADIOLOGY, 1988, 13 (01): : 15 - 18
  • [6] SECONDARY OVARIAN-CARCINOMA - A CLINICAL AND PATHOLOGICAL EVALUATION
    DEMOPOULOS, RI
    TOUGER, L
    DUBIN, N
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GYNECOLOGICAL PATHOLOGY, 1987, 6 (02) : 166 - 175
  • [7] COMPUTED-TOMOGRAPHY OF OVARIAN MASSES
    FUKUDA, T
    IKEUCHI, M
    HASHIMOTO, H
    SHAKUDO, M
    OONISHI, M
    SAIWAI, S
    NAKAZIMA, H
    MIYAMOTO, T
    TAKASHIMA, E
    INOUE, Y
    [J]. JOURNAL OF COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY, 1986, 10 (06) : 990 - 996
  • [8] GAGNON Y, 1989, CANCER, V64, P892, DOI 10.1002/1097-0142(19890815)64:4<892::AID-CNCR2820640422>3.0.CO
  • [9] 2-C
  • [10] Gargano G., 1992, European Journal of Gynaecological Oncology, V13, P431