Lan Bu

Differences in Imaging Findings Between Benign and Borderline Ovarian Serous/Mucous Tumors

ABSTRACT Objectives To retrospectively analyze the differences in imaging findings between benign and borderline ovarian serous/mucous tumors. Methods Imaging features of benign and borderline ovarian tumors were analyzed, including the tumor maximum diameter, laterality, tumor morphology, proportion of solid components, and the number of papillary processes in cystic solid tumors. Results A total of 189 tumors were evaluated, including 117 benign tumors and 72 borderline tumors. The mean maximum diameter of borderline tumors was higher than that of benign tumors (14.32 ± 9.93 vs. 8.62 ± 6.69 , p  < 0.05). Borderline tumors with solid components accounted for more than benign tumors (41.67% vs. 8.55%). The proportion of solid component volume/tumor volume > 15% in both benign and borderline tumors was very small (1.71%, 4.71%). In unilocular cysts and multilocular cysts, borderline tumors with diameters > 10 cm accounted for more than benign tumors. The sensitivity and specificity in distinguishing benign and borderline tumors of ultrasonography O‐RADS are slightly lower than those of SR of IOTA (86.1% vs. 91.7%, 81.2% vs. 82.1%). Conclusions In conclusion, the borderline tumors are larger and have more solid components than the benign tumors. The sensitivity and specificity in distinguishing benign and borderline tumors of ultrasonography O‐RADS are slightly lower than those of SR of IOTA.

Adnexal masses: Diagnostic performance of contrast‐enhanced ultrasound using the simple rules from the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis group

AbstractObjectiveTo evaluate the role of the Simple Rules (SR) from the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis group in contrast‐enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) of for the differential diagnosis of benign and malignant adnexal tumors.MethodsA total of 180 patients with suspected malignant adnexal masses admitted to Lanzhou University Second Hospital were included, all of whom received conventional ultrasound (US) and CEUS examination before surgery. All masses were assessed using SR in US and SR in CEUS. To compare the diagnostic performance, the sensitivity, specificity, negative and positive predictive values, Youden index, and area under the curves values of SR in US and SR in CEUS were obtained.ResultsSensitivity, negative predictive values, Youden index, and area under the curves were better for SR in CEUS than SR in US. The specificity and negative predictive value of SR in CEUS were lower than that of SR in US. Compared with SR in US, SR in CEUS significantly reduced the number of uncertain masses (21, 36.7% vs. 66, 11.7%).ConclusionWe concluded that SR in CEUS performed well in the diagnosis of malignant adnexal masses. SR in CEUS is a supplement to SR in US.