Related Experiment Video
Updated: Nov 15, 2025
In Vivo, Percutaneous, Needle Based, Optical Coherence Tomography of Renal Masses
Published on: March 30, 2015
Are CT and MRI useful tools to distinguish between micropapillary type and typical type of ovarian serous borderline
Ya Zhang1,2, Jing Tan1, Jiaping Wang3
1Department of Radiology, The Third Affiliated Hospital of Kunming Medical University, Yunnan Cancer Hospital, No. 519 Kunzhou Road, Xishan District, Kunming, 650118, Yunnan, People's Republic of China.
Purpose:
To investigate the computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) characteristics of ovarian serous borderline tumors (SBTs), and evaluate whether CT and MRI can be used to distinguish micropapillary from typical subtypes.
Materials And Methods:
We retrospectively reviewed the clinical features and CT and MR imaging findings of 47 patients with SBTs encountered at our institute from September 2013 to December 2019. 30 patients with 58 histologically proven typical SBT and 17 patients with 26 micropapillary SBT were reviewed. Preoperative CT and MR images were evaluated, by two observers in consensus for the laterality, maximum diameter (MD), morphology patterns, internal architecture, attenuation or signal intensity, ADC value, enhancement patterns of solid portions (SP), and extra-ovarian imaging features.
Results:
The median age were similar between typical SBT and SBT-MP (32.5 years, 36 years, respectively, P>0.05). Morphology patterns between two subtypes were significantly different on CT and MR images (P < 0.001). Irregular solid tumor (21/37, 56.76%) was the major morphology pattern of typical SBT tumor, while unilocular cyst with mural nodules (14/20, 70%) was the major morphology pattern of SBT-MP on CT images. Similarly, papillary architecture with internal branching (PA&IB) (17/21, 80.95%) was the major morphology pattern of typical SBT tumor, while unilocular cyst with mural nodules (4/6, 66.67%) was the major pattern of SBT-MP on MR images. PA&IB all showed slightly hyperintense papillary architecture with hypointense internal branching on T2-weighted MRI. More calcifications were found in typical SBT (24/37, 64.86%) than SBT-MP mass lesion (6/20, 30%) (P < 0.05). Hemorrhage was less frequently visible in (20/37, 54.05%) typical SBT lessons than SBT-MP mass lesion (18/20, 90%) (P < 0.05). The ovarian preservation is more seen in typical SBT (38/58, 65.52%) than SBT-MP (12/28, 42.86%) in our series (P < 0.05). Mean ADC value of solid portions (papillary architecture and mural nodules) was 1.68 (range from 1.44 to 1.85) × 10-3 mm2/s for typical SBT and 1.62 (range from 1.45 to 1.7) × 10-3 mm2/s for that of SBT-MP. The solid components of the two SBT subtypes showed wash-in appearance enhancements after contrast injection both in CT and MR images except 2 of SBT-MP with no enhancement as complete focal hemorrhage on MR images.
Conclusion:
Morphology and internal architecture are two major imaging features that can help to distinguish between SBT-MP and typical SBT.
