Accuracy of Ultrasound, Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Intraoperative Frozen Section in the Diagnosis of Ovarian Tumours: Data from a London Tertiary Centre

Overview

Journal BJC Rep

Publisher Nature Portfolio

Date 2024 Nov 8

PMID 39516671

Authors

Sian Mitchell

Joseph Gleeson

Mansi Tiwari

Frances Bailey

Jonathan Gaughran

Gautam Mehra

Mustafa Zelal Muallem

Ahmad Sayasneh

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: Ovarian cancer has the worst prognosis among all gynaecological cancers. The pre-operative and intraoperative diagnosis of ovarian tumours is imperative to ensure the right operation is performed and to improve patients' outcomes.

Methodology: A retrospective review of cases with a confirmed histological diagnosis of ovarian cases was undertaken from January 2017 to December 2021. Comparison was undertaken between this final diagnosis and the pre-operative ultrasound, MRI and frozen section (FS) to assess diagnostic accuracy of each. In the ultrasound cases, the level of the examiner was collected. Statistical analysis was performed using Stata MP v17.0 software (USA, 2023).

Results: In total, 156 ovarian masses were examined by FS. In the histopathological examination, 123/156 of these tumours were epithelial tumours. Pre-operative US subjective impression was made in 63/156 cases and preoperative MRI subjective impression was made in 129/156 cases. For benign, borderline and malignant tumours, FS demonstrated a sensitivity of 90.8% (95%CI:81.9-96.2), 86.8% (95%CI:71.9-95.6) and 97.6% (95%CI:87.4-99.9) respectively. Ultrasound's sensitivities were 95.2% (95%CI:76.2-99.9), 20% (95%:4.33-48.1), 57.1% (95%CI:28.9-82.3) and MRI's sensitivities were 100% (95%CI:80.5-100), 31.5% (95%CI:19.5-45.6) and 63.2% (95%CI:46-78.2) respectively.

Conclusions: FS remains an accurate tool for diagnosing ovarian malignancy. However, across both imaging modalities and FS, the diagnosis of borderline ovarian tumours remains challenging.

References

Petrone M, Bergamini A, Tateo S, Castellano L, Pella F, Rabaiotti E . Transvaginal ultrasound in evaluation and follow-up of ovarian granulosa cell tumors. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2020; 30(9):1384-1389. DOI: 10.1136/ijgc-2020-001276. View

Thomassin-Naggara I, Bazot M, Darai E, Callard P, Thomassin J, Cuenod C . Epithelial ovarian tumors: value of dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging and correlation with tumor angiogenesis. Radiology. 2008; 248(1):148-59. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2481071120. View

Rieber A, Nussle K, Stohr I, Grab D, Fenchel S, Kreienberg R . Preoperative diagnosis of ovarian tumors with MR imaging: comparison with transvaginal sonography, positron emission tomography, and histologic findings. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2001; 177(1):123-9. DOI: 10.2214/ajr.177.1.1770123. View

Hricak H, Chen M, Coakley F, Kinkel K, Yu K, Sica G . Complex adnexal masses: detection and characterization with MR imaging--multivariate analysis. Radiology. 2000; 214(1):39-46. DOI: 10.1148/radiology.214.1.r00ja3939. View

Ratnavelu N, Brown A, Mallett S, Scholten R, Patel A, Founta C . Intraoperative frozen section analysis for the diagnosis of early stage ovarian cancer in suspicious pelvic masses. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016; 3:CD010360. PMC: 6457848. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010360.pub2. View

Timmerman D, Bourne T, Tailor A, COLLINS W, Verrelst H, Vandenberghe K . A comparison of methods for preoperative discrimination between malignant and benign adnexal masses: the development of a new logistic regression model. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1999; 181(1):57-65. DOI: 10.1016/s0002-9378(99)70436-9. View

Bazot M, Darai E, Nassar-Slaba J, Lafont C, Thomassin-Naggara I . Value of magnetic resonance imaging for the diagnosis of ovarian tumors: a review. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2008; 32(5):712-23. DOI: 10.1097/RCT.0b013e31815881ef. View

Assem H, Rambau P, Lee S, Ogilvie T, Sienko A, Kelemen L . High-grade Endometrioid Carcinoma of the Ovary: A Clinicopathologic Study of 30 Cases. Am J Surg Pathol. 2018; 42(4):534-544. DOI: 10.1097/PAS.0000000000001016. View

Jacobs I, Oram D, Fairbanks J, Turner J, Frost C, Grudzinskas J . A risk of malignancy index incorporating CA 125, ultrasound and menopausal status for the accurate preoperative diagnosis of ovarian cancer. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1990; 97(10):922-9. DOI: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.1990.tb02448.x. View

10.

Sayasneh A, Kaijser J, Preisler J, Smith A, Raslan F, Johnson S . Accuracy of ultrasonography performed by examiners with varied training and experience in predicting specific pathology of adnexal masses. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2014; 45(5):605-12. DOI: 10.1002/uog.14675. View

11.

Palakkan S, Augestine T, Valsan M, Vahab K, Nair L . Role of Frozen Section in Surgical Management of Ovarian Neoplasm. Gynecol Minim Invasive Ther. 2020; 9(1):13-17. PMC: 7008647. DOI: 10.4103/GMIT.GMIT_2_19. View

12.

Tangjitgamol S, Jesadapatrakul S, Manusirivithaya S, Sheanakul C . Accuracy of frozen section in diagnosis of ovarian mass. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2004; 14(2):212-9. DOI: 10.1111/j.1048-891X.2004.014202.x. View

13.

Foti P, Attina G, Spadola S, Caltabiano R, Farina R, Palmucci S . MR imaging of ovarian masses: classification and differential diagnosis. Insights Imaging. 2015; 7(1):21-41. PMC: 4729709. DOI: 10.1007/s13244-015-0455-4. View

14.

Maheshwari A, Gupta S, Kane S, Kulkarni Y, Goyal B, Tongaonkar H . Accuracy of intraoperative frozen section in the diagnosis of ovarian neoplasms: experience at a tertiary oncology center. World J Surg Oncol. 2006; 4:12. PMC: 1397834. DOI: 10.1186/1477-7819-4-12. View

15.

Meys E, Kaijser J, Kruitwagen R, Slangen B, Van Calster B, Aertgeerts B . Subjective assessment versus ultrasound models to diagnose ovarian cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Cancer. 2016; 58:17-29. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejca.2016.01.007. View

16.

Bazot M, Nassar-Slaba J, Thomassin-Naggara I, Cortez A, Uzan S, Darai E . MR imaging compared with intraoperative frozen-section examination for the diagnosis of adnexal tumors; correlation with final histology. Eur Radiol. 2006; 16(12):2687-99. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-006-0163-z. View

17.

Adusumilli S, Hussain H, Caoili E, Weadock W, Murray J, Johnson T . MRI of sonographically indeterminate adnexal masses. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2006; 187(3):732-40. DOI: 10.2214/AJR.05.0905. View

18.

Saini A, Dina R, McIndoe G, Patrick Soutter W, Gishen P, deSouza N . Characterization of adnexal masses with MRI. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2005; 184(3):1004-9. DOI: 10.2214/ajr.184.3.01841004. View

19.

Timmerman D, Testa A, Bourne T, Ferrazzi E, Ameye L, Konstantinovic M . Logistic regression model to distinguish between the benign and malignant adnexal mass before surgery: a multicenter study by the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis Group. J Clin Oncol. 2005; 23(34):8794-801. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2005.01.7632. View

20.

Van Gorp T, Veldman J, Van Calster B, Cadron I, Leunen K, Amant F . Subjective assessment by ultrasound is superior to the risk of malignancy index (RMI) or the risk of ovarian malignancy algorithm (ROMA) in discriminating benign from malignant adnexal masses. Eur J Cancer. 2012; 48(11):1649-56. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejca.2011.12.003. View