Retrospective Study
Copyright ©The Author(s) 2023.
World J Clin Cases. Nov 6, 2023; 11(31): 7553-7561
Published online Nov 6, 2023. doi: 10.12998/wjcc.v11.i31.7553
Table 1 Ultrasonographic characteristics of benign and malignant tumors

Echo
Capsule
Blood flow resistance index
Form
Blood flow signal display rate
Rules
Irregularity
Yes
No
Clear
Not clear
Benign tumor55546140.79 ± 0.0554615 (25%)
Malignant tumor84212380.44 ± 0.4954550 (100%)
χ2/t63.80930.35024.01070.18963.462
P value0.0000.0000.0000.0000.000
Table 2 Comparison of apparent diffusion coefficient value (mm2/s) and time-signal intensity curve image features [n (%)] between benign and malignant tumors
Solid part ADC valueADC value of cystic partTIC image features
I type
II type
III type
Benign tumor1789.74 ± 122.532799.33 ± 89.8846 (76.67)14 (23.33)0 (0.00)
Malignant tumor867.67 ± 15.872260.03 ± 91.750 (0.00)4 (0.08)46 (92.00)
χ2/t33.35320.61565.8854.68594.875
P value0.0000.0000.0000.0300.000
Table 3 Serum tumor markers in patients with benign and malignant tumors

n
CA125 (U/mL)
HE4 (pmol/L)
Benign tumor6022.67 ± 4.5775.33 ± 9.84
Malignant tumor50397.60 ± 180.02298.70 ± 40.66
t-11.462-28.982
P value0.0000.000
Table 4 Comparison of diagnostic results and pathological results of three examination methods for ovarian tumors
nUS
MRI
Tumor marker
Joint detection method
Benign
Malignant
Benign
Malignant
Benign
Malignant
Benign
Malignant
Benign tumor6048125194911591
Malignant tumor501238842446050
Total1106050595153575951
Table 5 Comparison of diagnostic efficiency of different methods
Method
Diagnostic accuracy (%)
Diagnostic sensitivity (%)
Diagnostic specificity (%)
US78.18 (86/110)80.00 (48/60)76.00 (38/50)
MRI84.55 (93/110)85.00 (51/60)84.00 (42/50)
Tumor marker86.36 (95/110)81.67 (49/60)92.00 (46/50)
Joint detection method99.09 (109/110)98.33 (59/60)100.00 (50/50)
χ222.70516.59030.303
P value0.0000.0010.000