Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Comparison between borderline ovarian tumors and carcinomas using semi-automated histogram analysis of diffusion-weighted imaging: focusing on solid components

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Japanese Journal of Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

This study aimed to evaluate whether histogram analysis of the apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) of a solid tumor component could distinguish borderline ovarian tumors from ovarian carcinoma.

Materials and methods

Sixteen pathologically proven borderline tumors and 21 carcinomas were retrospectively examined. Magnetic resonance (1.5-T) image data sets were coregistered, and the solid components of each tumor were semiautomatically segmented. ADC histograms of the solid components were extracted; modes, minimums, means, and 10th, 25th, 50th, 75th, and 90th percentiles of the histograms were compared between the two tumor types, and receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was performed.

Results

The mode, minimum, mean, 10th, 25th, 50th, and 75th percentile ADC values of solid components of borderline tumors were significantly larger than those of carcinomas. Among these, the 10th percentile values had the lowest p value (p = 0.0003). At ROC analysis, the area under the curve (AUC) in the 10th percentile was the greatest (0.854), and the best cutoff value in the 10th percentile provided the highest specificity (93.8 %).

Conclusions

ADC histograms of solid tumor components facilitated the distinction between borderline ovarian tumors and carcinoma. The 10th percentile ADC values had the best diagnostic performance.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

ADC:

Apparent diffusion coefficient

DWI:

Diffusion-weighted imaging

References

  1. Skirnisdottir I, Garmo H, Wilander E, Holmberg L. Borderline ovarian tumors in Sweden 1960–2005: trends in incidence and age at diagnosis compared to ovarian cancer. Int J Cancer. 2008;123(8):1897–901.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Canfarotta M, Gillan E, Balarezo F, Campbell B, Tsai A, Finck C. Diagnosis, surgical treatment, and management of borderline ovarian surface epithelial neoplasms: report of 2 cases and review of literature. J Pediatr Surg Case Rep. 2014;2(10):468–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Fauvet R, Boccara J, Dufournet C, David-Montefiore E, Poncelet C, Darai E. Restaging surgery for women with borderline ovarian tumors: results of a French multicenter study. Cancer. 2004;100(6):1145–51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Koutlaki N, Dimitraki M, Zervoudis S, Sofiadou V, Grapsas X, Psillaki A, et al. Conservative surgery for borderline ovarian tumors–emphasis on fertility preservation. A review. Chirurgia (Bucur). 2011;106(6):715–22.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. de Souza NM, O’Neill R, McIndoe GA, Dina R, Soutter WP. Borderline tumors of the ovary: CT and MRI features and tumor markers in differentiation from stage I disease. Am J Roentgenol. 2005;184(3):999–1003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Takeuchi M, Matsuzaki K, Nishitani H. Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging of ovarian tumors: differentiation of benign and malignant solid components of ovarian masses. J Comput Assist Tomo. 2010;34(2):173–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Li WH, Chu CT, Cui YF, Zhang P, Zhu MJ. Diffusion-weighted MRI: a useful technique to discriminate benign versus malignant ovarian surface epithelial tumors with solid and cystic components. Abdom Imaging. 2012;37(5):897–903.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Lambregts DM, Beets GL, Maas M, Curvo-Semedo L, Kessels AG, Thywissen T, et al. Tumor ADC measurements in rectal cancer: effect of ROI methods on ADC values and interobserver variability. Eur Radiol. 2011;21(12):2567–74.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Bonekamp D, Bonekamp S, Halappa VG, Geschwind JF, Eng J, Corona-Villalobos CP, et al. Interobserver agreement of semi-automated and manual measurements of functional MRI metrics of treatment response in hepatocellular carcinoma. Eur J Radiol. 2014;83(3):487–96.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Kwee RM, Dik AK, Sosef MN, Berendsen RC, Sassen S, Lammering G, et al. Interobserver reproducibility of diffusion-weighted MRI in monitoring tumor response to neoadjuvant therapy in esophageal cancer. PLoS One. 2014;9(4):e92211.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Downey K, Riches SF, Morgan VA, Giles SL, Attygalle AD, Ind TE, et al. Relationship between imaging biomarkers of stage I cervical cancer and poor-prognosis histologic features: quantitative histogram analysis of diffusion-weighted MR images. Am J Roentgenol. 2013;200(2):314–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Donati OF, Mazaheri Y, Afaq A, Vargas HA, Zheng J, Moskowitz CS, et al. Prostate cancer aggressiveness: assessment with whole-lesion histogram analysis of the apparent diffusion coefficient. Radiology. 2014;271(1):143–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Kim EJ, Kim SH, Park GE, Kang BJ, Song BJ, Kim YJ, et al. Histogram analysis of apparent diffusion coefficient at 3.0t: Correlation with prognostic factors and subtypes of invasive ductal carcinoma. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2015.

  14. Tha KK, Terae S, Nakagawa S, Inoue T, Kitagawa N, Kako Y, et al. Impaired integrity of the brain parenchyma in non-geriatric patients with major depressive disorder revealed by diffusion tensor imaging. Psychiat Res-Neuroim. 2013;212(3):208–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Otsu N. A threshold selection method from gray-level histograms. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics In N/A. 1979;9:1.

  16. Hart WR. Borderline epithelial tumors of the ovary. Mod Pathol. 2005;18:S33–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Guo Y, Cai YQ, Cai ZL, Gao YG, An NY, Ma L, et al. Differentiation of clinically benign and malignant breast lesions using diffusion-weighted imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2002;16(2):172–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Gibbs P, Liney GP, Pickles MD, Zelhof B, Rodrigues G, Turnbull LW. Correlation of ADC and T2 measurements with cell density in prostate cancer at 3.0 Tesla. Invest Radiol. 2009;44(9):572–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Manenti G, Di Roma M, Mancino S, Bartolucci DA, Palmieri G, Mastrangeli R, et al. Malignant renal neoplasms: correlation between ADC values and cellularity in diffusion weighted magnetic resonance imaging at 3 T. Radiol Med. 2008;113(2):199–213.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Fujii S, Kakite S, Nishihara K, Kanasaki Y, Harada T, Kigawa J, et al. Diagnostic Accuracy of Diffusion-Weighted Imaging in Differentiating Benign From Malignant Ovarian Lesions. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2008;28(5):1149–56.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Thomassin-Naggara I, Darai E, Cuenod CA, Fournier L, Toussaint I, Marsault C, et al. Contribution of diffusion-weighted MR imaging for predicting benignity of complex adnexal masses. Eur Radiol. 2009;19(6):1544–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Zhang P, Cui YF, Li WH, Ren G, Chu CT, Wu XR. 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. 2012;10.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Hokkaido University Hospital, N14, W5, Kita-ku, Sapporo, 060-8648, Japan

    Fumi Kato, Kohsuke Kudo & Noriko Oyama-Manabe

  2. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Hokkaido University Graduate School of Medicine, N14, W5, Sapporo, 060-8648, Japan

    Yosuke Konno, Tatsuya Kato, Hidemichi Watari & Noriaki Sakuragi

  3. Department of Radiation Medicine, Hokkaido University Graduate School of Medicine, N15, W7, Kita-ku, Sapporo, 060-8638, Japan

    Rie Mimura, Khin Khin Tha & Hiroki Shirato

Authors
  1. Rie Mimura
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Fumi Kato
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Khin Khin Tha
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Kohsuke Kudo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Yosuke Konno
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Noriko Oyama-Manabe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Tatsuya Kato
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Hidemichi Watari
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Noriaki Sakuragi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Hiroki Shirato
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Fumi Kato.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

None.

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mimura, R., Kato, F., Tha, K.K. et al. Comparison between borderline ovarian tumors and carcinomas using semi-automated histogram analysis of diffusion-weighted imaging: focusing on solid components. Jpn J Radiol 34, 229–237 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11604-016-0518-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11604-016-0518-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation