Yang Q, Zhang H, Ma PQ, Peng B, Yin GT, Zhang NN, Wang HB. Value of ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging combined with tumor markers in the diagnosis of ovarian tumors. World J Clin Cases 2023; 11(31): 7553-7561 [PMID: 38078133 DOI: 10.12998/wjcc.v11.i31.7553]
Corresponding Author of This Article
Hai-Bao Wang, MD, PhD, Chief Physician, Professor, The First Affiliated Hospital of Anhui Medical University, No. 218 Jixi Road, Hefei 230022, Anhui Province, China. wang23415@126.com
Research Domain of This Article
Oncology
Article-Type of This Article
Retrospective Study
Open-Access Policy of This Article
This article is an open-access article which was selected by an in-house editor and fully peer-reviewed by external reviewers. It is distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
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 tumor
55
5
46
14
0.79 ± 0.05
54
6
15 (25%)
Malignant tumor
8
42
12
38
0.44 ± 0.49
5
45
50 (100%)
χ2/t
63.809
30.350
24.010
70.189
63.462
P value
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
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 value
ADC value of cystic part
TIC image features
I type
II type
III type
Benign tumor
1789.74 ± 122.53
2799.33 ± 89.88
46 (76.67)
14 (23.33)
0 (0.00)
Malignant tumor
867.67 ± 15.87
2260.03 ± 91.75
0 (0.00)
4 (0.08)
46 (92.00)
χ2/t
33.353
20.615
65.885
4.685
94.875
P value
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.030
0.000
Table 3 Serum tumor markers in patients with benign and malignant tumors
n
CA125 (U/mL)
HE4 (pmol/L)
Benign tumor
60
22.67 ± 4.57
75.33 ± 9.84
Malignant tumor
50
397.60 ± 180.02
298.70 ± 40.66
t
-11.462
-28.982
P value
0.000
0.000
Table 4 Comparison of diagnostic results and pathological results of three examination methods for ovarian tumors
n
US
MRI
Tumor marker
Joint detection method
Benign
Malignant
Benign
Malignant
Benign
Malignant
Benign
Malignant
Benign tumor
60
48
12
51
9
49
11
59
1
Malignant tumor
50
12
38
8
42
4
46
0
50
Total
110
60
50
59
51
53
57
59
51
Table 5 Comparison of diagnostic efficiency of different methods
Method
Diagnostic accuracy (%)
Diagnostic sensitivity (%)
Diagnostic specificity (%)
US
78.18 (86/110)
80.00 (48/60)
76.00 (38/50)
MRI
84.55 (93/110)
85.00 (51/60)
84.00 (42/50)
Tumor marker
86.36 (95/110)
81.67 (49/60)
92.00 (46/50)
Joint detection method
99.09 (109/110)
98.33 (59/60)
100.00 (50/50)
χ2
22.705
16.590
30.303
P value
0.000
0.001
0.000
Citation: Yang Q, Zhang H, Ma PQ, Peng B, Yin GT, Zhang NN, Wang HB. Value of ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging combined with tumor markers in the diagnosis of ovarian tumors. World J Clin Cases 2023; 11(31): 7553-7561