| AZ | EN | RU

STATISTICS


ROLE OF RADIOLOGICAL RESEARCH METHODS IN EARLY DIAGNOSIS OF OVARIAN TUMORS
Ibadova Sh.T., Nuriyeva A.A.

DOI: 10.61775/2413-3302.v4i42.04

SUMMARY
Malignant ovarian tumors and their early diagnosis are among the most challenging issues in gynecologic oncology. Early diagnostic imaging techniques play a crucial role in the detection and differential diagnosis of ovarian tumors. Modern early diagnostic imaging of ovarian tumors relies on a combination of ultrasound (US), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and computed tomography (CT) data. To assess the extent of ovarian cancer, in addition to CT and MRI, positron emission tomography (PET) with radiopharmaceuticals is used. Each method has its own advantages and disadvantages in detecting pathological lesions. Abdominal ultrasound is performed to determine the extent of the tumor. Ultrasound has greater limitations than CT and MRI in detecting peritoneal metastases. Ultrasound and MRI are highly sensitive in characterizing tumor masses, but MRI is a more specific diagnostic method. PET allows for the assessment of tissue metabolic properties, providing additional information about the biological activity of ovarian cancer. Only by combining the results of comprehensive early diagnosis and radiological examinations of malignant ovarian tumours can the detection rate of ovarian cancer in its early stages be significantly increased and, consequently, appropriate treatment be started in a timely manner.
Keywords: CT, MRI, PET, US ovarian cancer, early diagnosis, radiological methods

REFERENCES
  1. Алешикова О.И., Герфанова Е.В., Антонова И.Б., Бабаева Н.А. ПЭТ-КТ в диагностике рецидивов рака яичников // Вопросы онкологии. 2022. Т. 68. № 3S. С. 85-86. Doi:org/1011186/s12885-021-08815-3.
  2. Буланов М.Н., Сорокина Ю.В., Буланова М.М., Горта Р.Н. Ультразвуковая диагностика пограничных опухолей яичников: обзор литературы и собственные данные // Ультразвуковая и функциональная диагностика. 2020. № 3. С. 40-64. Doi:10.21883/PJTF.2017.16.44933.16650.
  3. Буланов М.Н., Чекалова М.А., Мазуркевич М.В., Ветшева Н.Н. Дифференциальная ультразвуковая диагностика доброкачественных и злокачественных опухолей яичников: диагностические модели, алгоритмы, стратификационные системы, консенсусы (1990-2023) // Ультразвуковая и функциональная диагностика. 2023. № 2. С. 34-61. Doi:10.1140/epjst/e2009-01136-1.
  4. Журихина А.В., Азаров Г.Е., Черницын К.И. Новейшие методы КТ- и ПЭТ-диагностики злокачественных эпителиальных опухолей яичников в лучевой диагностике // Молодежный инновационный вестник. 2022. Т. 11. № S1. С. 237-241. Doi:1026442/20795696.2022.2.201387.
  5. Леонов М.Г. Рак яичников: эпидемиология, патогенез, диагностика: учебное пособие- Санкт-Петербург- ПЕРСОНА ПРЕСС, 2022. - 200 с.İSSN:2074-0980.
  6. Пахтусов А.И., Логарева Е.В. Системный анализ процесса диагностики опухолей яичников // Вестник кибернетики. 2023. Т. 22. № 4. С. 33-41 Doi:10.1999-7604.
  7. Тришина С.Д., Андреева А.А., Черницын К.И. ПЭТ-КТ в диагностике рака яичников // Молодежный инновационный вестник. 2023. Т. 12. № S2. С. 219-221.İSSN 2415-7805.
  8. Хакимова М.Н., Мамадалиева Я.М., Султонова Л.Р., Абдуллаева Ш., Фарходова Ю. Оценка возможностей современных комплексных ультразвуковых методов исследования в ранней диагностике рака яичников // Молодой ученый. 2023. № 8 (455). С. 101-106.İSSN:2073-565X.
  9. Al-Ibraheem A., AlSharif A., Abu-Hinjlih R., et al. Clinical impact of F-FDG PET/CT on the management of gynecologic cancers: one center experience // Asia Ocean J Nucl Med Biol. 2019; 7: 4-12.Doi: 10.22038/AOJNMB 2018.11208.
  10. Amin R.W., Ross A.M., Lee J., Guy J., Stafford B. Patterns of ovarian cancer and uterine cancer mortality and incidence in the contiguous USA // Sci. Total Environ. 2019; 697: Doi:10.1016/.scitiotenv.2029.134128.
  11. Andreotti R. F. O-RADS US Risk Stratification and Management System: A Consensus Guideline from the ACR Ovarian-Adnexal Reporting and Data System Committee //Radiology. - 2020. Vol. 294. - № 1.- P. 168-185. Doi:10.1148/radiol.2019191150.
  12. Bartlett D. J. Comparison of routine pelvic US and MR imaging in patients with pathologically confirmed endometriosis //Abdominal Radiology. - 2020. - Vol. 45. - № 6. - P. 1670-1679.Doi: 10.1007/s00261-019-02124-x.
  13. Bаumler M., Gallant D., Druckmann R., Kuhn W. Ultrasound screening of ovarian cancer // Horm Mol Biol Clin Investig. 2019; 41 (3).Doi:10.1007/s40152-025-00422-3.
  14. Cianci R. Peritoneal Carcinomatosis: Is There a True Benefi t From Diffusion-Weighted Imaging? // Curr. Probl. Diagn. Radiol. - 2019; Vol. S0363-0188(19). - P. 30044-1.Doi:10.1067/j.cpradiol.2019.06.002.
  15. Engbersen M. MRI with diffusion-weighted imaging to predict feasibility of complete cytoreduction with the peritoneal cancer index (PCI) in advanced stage ovarian cancer patients // European Journal of Radiology; 2019; Vol. 114: P. 146-151. Doi:10.1016/j.ejrad.2019.03.007
  16. Federico M. Prospective intra/inter-observer evaluation of prebrachytherapy cervical cancer tumor width measured in TRUS and MR imaging //Radiation Oncology. - 2019. - Vol. 14. - № 1. - P. 173.Doi:10.37256/cm.5320244539.
  17. Forstner R. ESUR recommendations for MR imaging of the sonographically indeterminate adnexal mass: an update // European Radiology. - 2017. - Vol. 27. - № 6. - P. 2248-2257.Doi:10.1007/978-3-540-35280-8-1506.
  18. Gadelhak B., Tawfik A.M., Saleh G.A., Batouty N.M., Sobh D.M., Hamdy O., Refky B. Extended abdominopelvic MRI versus CT at the time of adnexal mass. characterization for assessing radiologic peritoneal cancer index (PCI) prior to cytoreductive surgery //Abdom. Radiol. (NY). 2019; 44(6): 2254-61.Doi:10.1007/s00261-019-01939.
  19. Garg S, Kaur A, Mohi JK et al. Evaluation of IOTA Simple Ultrasound Rules to Distinguish Benign and Malignant Ovarian Tumours // J Clin Diagn Res 2017; 11 (8): TC06-TC09. Doi:10.18203/issn.2454-5929.ijohns20190760.
  20. George R., Patriciu A., Andra P. Comparative Study between 18F-FDG PET/CT and Conventional Imaging in the Evaluation of Progressive Disease and Recurrence in Ovarian Carcinoma [Internet]. 2021 Jun; 3;9(6):666. doi:10.1046/j1525-1497.1998.00227.x.
  21. Gity M. Differentiation of Benign from Malignant Adnexal Masses by Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced MRI (DCE-MRI): Quantitative and Semiquantitative analysis at 3-Tesla MRI //Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention: APJCP. - 2019. - Vol. 20. - № 4. - P. 1073-1079. doi:10.31557/APJCP.2019.20.4.1073.
  22. Hack K., Gandhi K., Kahn D., Glanc P. External validation O-RADS ultrasound risk stratificationand management system. Ultrasound Obstet // Gynecol. 2021; 58 (Suppl. 1): 1-57. Doi:10.1148/radiol.211868.
  23. Hai-Ming L. The value of dynamic contrast - enhanced MRI in characterizing complex ovarian tumors // Journal of Ovarian Research. - 2017. - Vol. 10. - № 4. - P. 4-10. doi:10.1186/s13048-017-0302-y.
  24. Halankar J. MRI classification and characterization of complex ovarian masses // Appled radiology. - 2017. - Vol. 8. - P. 6-20.Doi:10.4103/0971-3026.101084.
  25. Hottat N.A., Van Pachterbeke C., Vanden-Houte K. Magnetic resonance scoring system for the assessment of ovarian and adnexal masses: added value of diffusion-weighted imaging including the apparent diffusion coefficient map. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 2020; May 21. doi:10.1002/uog.22090.
  26. Jill J. Screening for ovarian cancer // JAMA. 2018; 319(6): 624. doi:10.1001/jama.2027.21926.
  27. Jung T. Y. The Application of Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Deformed 11C-Methionine-Positron Emission Tomography Images in Stereotactic Radiosurgery //Stereotactic and Functional Neurosurgery. - 2019. - Vol. 97. -№ 4. -P. 217-224.Doi:10.1159/000503732
  28. Mona A. Usefulness of PET-CT in the evaluation of suspected recurrent ovarian carcinoma // Egyp. Jour of Radiol and Nucl Medic. - 2019. - Vol. 50. - № 2. - P. 43-54. Doi:10.1186/s43055-019-0002-2.
  29. Moro F, Pasciuto T, Djokovic D et al. Role of CA125/CEA ratio and ultrasound parameters in identifying metastases to the ovaries in patients with multilocular and multilocular-solid ovarian masses // Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2019; 53 (1): 116-23. doi:10.1002/uog.20270.
  30. Nougaret S. Endometrial cancer MRI staging: updated guidelines of the European Society of urogenital radiology //European Radiology. - 2019. - Vol. 29. - № 2. - P. 792-805. doi:10.1148/radiol.15141212.
  31. Smith-Bindman R., Poder L., Johnson E., Miglioretti D.L. Risk of malignant ovarian cancer based on ultrasonography findings in a large unselected population // JAMA Intern. Med. 2019; 179(1): 71-7. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.5113.
  32. Sung H., Ferlay J., Siegel R.L. et al. Global Cancer Statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN Estimates of Incidence and Mortality Worldwide for 36 Can% cers in 185 Countries //CA Cancer J.Clin. 2021; 71 (3): 209-249. doi: 10.3322/caac.21660.doi:10.1007/s
  33. Thomassin-Naggara I., Poncelet E., Jalaguier-Coudray A., Guerra A., Fournier L.S., Stojanovic S. et al. Ovarian-adnexal reporting data system magnetic resonance imaging (O-RADS MRI) score for risk stratification of sonographically indeterminate adnexal masses // JAMA Netw Open. 2020; 3(1): Doi:10.1002/jmri.28947.
  34. Zamwar UM, Anjankar AP. Aetiology, Epidemiology, Histopathology, Classification, Detailed Evaluation, and Treatment of Ovarian Cancer // Cureus. 2022 Oct 21;14(10): e30561. Doi:10.7759/cureus49308
  35. Zhou L, Xuan Z, Wang Y. Diagnostic value of ultrasound score, color Doppler ultrasound RI and spiral CT for ovarian tumors // Oncol Lett. 2019;17(6):5499-5504. doi:10.3892/ol.2019.10215.