Value of ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging combined with tumor markers in the diagnosis of ovarian tumors

Qian Yang; Hui Zhang; Pei-Qi Ma; Bin Peng; Gui-Tao Yin; Nan-Nan Zhang; Hai-Bao Wang

doi:10.12998/wjcc.v11.i31.7553

Value of ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging combined with tumor markers in the diagnosis of ovarian tumors

World J Clin Cases. 2023 Nov 6;11(31):7553-7561. doi: 10.12998/wjcc.v11.i31.7553.

Authors

Qian Yang^{1

2}, Hui Zhang¹, Pei-Qi Ma³, Bin Peng³, Gui-Tao Yin⁴, Nan-Nan Zhang⁵, Hai-Bao Wang⁶

Affiliations

¹ The First Affiliated Hospital of Anhui Medical University, Hefei 230022, Anhui Province, China.
² Taihe Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Fuyang 236000, Anhui Province, China.
³ Fuyang People's Hospital, Fuyang 236000, Anhui Province, China.
⁴ No. 2 People's Hospital of Fuyang City, Fuyang 236000, Anhui Province, China.
⁵ Linquan People's Hospital, Fuyang 236000, Anhui Province, China.
⁶ The First Affiliated Hospital of Anhui Medical University, Hefei 230022, Anhui Province, China. wang23415@126.com.

Abstract

Background: Compare the diagnostic performance of ultrasound (US), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and serum tumor markers alone or in combination for detecting ovarian tumors.

Aim: To investigate the diagnostic value of US, MRI combined with tumor markers in ovarian tumors.

Methods: The data of 110 patients with ovarian tumors, confirmed by surgery and pathology, were collected in our hospital from February 2018 to May 2023. The dataset included 60 cases of benign tumors and 50 cases of malignant tumors. Prior to surgery, all patients underwent preoperative US and MRI examinations, as well as serum tumor marker tests [carbohydrate antigen 125 (CA125), human epididymis protein 4 (HE4)]. The aim of the study was to compare the diagnostic performance of these three methods individually and in combination for ovarian tumors.

Results: This study found statistically significant differences in the ultrasonic imaging characteristics between benign and malignant tumors. These differences include echo characteristics, presence or absence of a capsule, blood flow resistance index, clear tumor shape, and blood flow signal display rate (P < 0.05). The apparent diffusion coefficient values of the solid and cystic parts in benign tumors were found to be higher compared to malignant tumors (P < 0.05). Additionally, the time-intensity curve image features of benign and malignant tumors showed significant statistical differences (P < 0.05). The levels of serum CA125 and HE4 in benign tumors were lower than those in malignant tumors (P < 0.05). The combined use of US, MRI, and tumor markers in the diagnosis of ovarian tumors demonstrates higher accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity compared to using each method individually (P < 0.05).

Conclusion: US, MRI, and tumor markers each have their own advantages and disadvantages when it comes to diagnosing ovarian tumors. However, by combining these three methods, we can significantly enhance the accuracy of ovarian tumor diagnosis, enabling early detection and identification of the tumor's nature, and providing valuable guidance for clinical treatment.

Keywords: Differential diagnosis; Magnetic resonance imaging; Ovarian tumors; Tumor markers; Ultrasound.