title: Value of 3.0 T diffusion-weighted imaging in discriminating thecoma and fibrothecoma from other adnexal solid masses.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  To investigate the value of diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) at 3.0 T (3T), and especially the apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC), in discriminating ovarian thecoma from other adnexal solid masses.
  
  
  METHODS
  Eighteen thecomas or fibrothecomas, 14 ligamentous leiomyomas, and 24 other ovarian solid tumors underwent prospective DWI magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in addition to routine MRI on a 3T MRI machine. The baseline characteristics, components, and conventional MRI and DWI-MRI signals for the thecomas were recorded. The ADC values (ADCs) were measured for each group and compared.
  
  
  RESULTS
  The thecomas often appeared as homogeneous isointensity (17/18) on T1-weighted images (T1WI; 11/18) or T2WI (11/18) on DWI-MRI, with minor (9/18) or mild (6/18) enhancement. The mean ADC value for thecoma (1.20 ± 0.45 × 10-3 mm2/s) was almost equal to that of the other solid ovarian masses (1.26 ± 0.51 × 10-3 mm2/s), but lower than that for leiomyoma (1.48 ± 0.42 × 10-3 mm2/s), although not significantly so. There was a significant difference (p = 0.043) in the ADCs of the benign ovarian solid masses (1.16 ± 0.47 × 10-3 mm2/s) and leiomyomas (1.48 ± 0.42 × 10-3 mm2/s).
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  There is no significant difference in ADC between thecoma and other adnexal solid masses, but the ADCs of thecomas are lower than those of leiomyomas.
authors: Department of Radiology,Obstetrics and Gynecology Hospital, Fudan University, No, 419, Fang Xie Road, Shanghai 200011, China. zhanghe1977@gmail.com.
authors: He
authors: H
authors: Zhang
authors: Guo-Fu
authors: GF
authors: Zhang
authors: Tian-Ping
authors: TP
authors: Wang
authors: Hao
authors: H
authors: Zhang
references: Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2009 May;279(5):763-5
references: 18813938
references: Br J Radiol. 2011 Jul;84(1003):600-11
references: 21081581
references: Radiology. 2011 Mar;258(3):793-803
references: 21193596
references: J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2012 Jan-Feb;36(1):46-53
references: 22261769
references: Radiographics. 1999 Sep-Oct;19(5):1179-97
references: 10489175
references: Clin Radiol. 2005 Mar;60(3):340-8
references: 15710137
references: Radiographics. 2004 Oct;24 Suppl 1:S147-66
references: 15486238
references: Eur Radiol. 2006 Dec;16(12):2687-99
references: 16547708
references: J Ovarian Res. 2012 Nov 14;5(1):33
references: 23148860
references: AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2006 Sep;187(3):732-40
references: 16928938
references: Eur J Radiol. 2010 Dec;76(3):367-85
references: 20810230
references: J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2010 Mar-Apr;34(2):173-6
references: 20351498
references: Cancer. 2003 May 15;97(10 Suppl):2631-42
references: 12733128
references: Obstet Gynecol Int. 2009;2009:492386
references: 19946643
references: Eur J Radiol. 2011 Apr;78(1):21-9
references: 20801592
references: Radiology. 1997 Sep;204(3):795-8
references: 9280262
references: J Magn Reson Imaging. 2005 Aug;22(2):271-8
references: 16028258
references: Ann Diagn Pathol. 2008 Feb;12(1):12-6
references: 18164409
references: AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2012 Mar;198(3):W296-303
references: 22358029