A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

The Value of Diffusion-Weighted Imaging in the Differential Diagnosis of Ovarian Lesions: A Meta-Analysis. | LitMetric

The Value of Diffusion-Weighted Imaging in the Differential Diagnosis of Ovarian Lesions: A Meta-Analysis.

PLoS One

Department of Radiology, College of Medicine, Incheon St. Mary's Hospital, The Catholic University of Korea, Incheon, Republic of Korea.

Published: July 2016

Objectives: The ability of contrast-enhanced MRI to distinguish between malignant and benign ovarian masses is limited. The aim of this meta-analysis is to evaluate the diagnostic performance of diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) in differentiating malignant from benign ovarian masses.

Methods: A comprehensive literature search was performed in several authoritative databases to identify relevant articles. The weighted mean difference (WMD) and corresponding 95% confidence interval (95% CI) were calculated. We also used subgroup analysis to analyze study heterogeneity, and evaluated publication bias.

Results: The meta-analysis is based on 21 studies, which reported the findings for 731 malignant and 918 benign ovarian masses. There was no significant difference in apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values for DWI between benign and malignant lesions (WMD = 0.22, 95% CI = -0.02-0.47, p = 0.08). Subgroup analysis by benign tumor type revealed higher ADC values (or a trend toward higher values) for cysts, cystadenomas and other benign tumors compared to malignant masses (cyst: WMD = 0.54, 95% CI = -0.05-1.12, p = 0.07; cystadenoma: WMD = 0.73, 95% CI = 0.38-1.07, p < 0.0001; other benign tumor: WMD = 0.16, 95% CI = -0.13-0.46, p = 0.28). On the other hand, lower ADC values (or a trend toward lower values) were observed for endometrioma and teratoma compared to malignant masses (endometrioma: WMD = -0.09, 95% CI = -0.47-0.29, p = 0.64; teratoma: WMD = -0.49, 95% CI = -0.85-0.12, p = 0.009). Subgroup analysis by mass property revealed higher ADC values in cystic tumor types than in solid types for both benign and malignant tumors. Significant study heterogeneity was observed. There was no notable publication bias.

Conclusions: Quantitative DWI is not a reliable diagnostic method for differentiation between benign and malignant ovarian masses. This knowledge is essential in avoiding misdiagnosis of ovarian masses.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4764370PMC
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0149465PLOS

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

ovarian masses
16
adc values
16
benign ovarian
12
subgroup analysis
12
benign malignant
12
benign
9
diffusion-weighted imaging
8
malignant
8
malignant benign
8
95%
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!