Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention

Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention (아시아태평양암예방학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Improved Diagnostic Accuracy in Characterization of Adnexal Masses by Detection of Choline Peak Using 1H MR Spectroscopy in Comparison to Internal Reference at 3 Tesla

  • Malek, Mahrooz (Department of Radiology, Medical Imaging Center, Advanced Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology Research Center (ADIR), Imam Khomeini Hospital) ;
  • Pourashraf, Maryam (Department of Radiology, Medical Imaging Center, Advanced Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology Research Center (ADIR), Imam Khomeini Hospital) ;
  • Gilani, Mitra Modares (Department of Gynecology Oncology, Vali-e-Asr Hospital, Tehran University of Medical Sciences) ;
  • Gity, Masoumeh (Department of Radiology, Medical Imaging Center, Advanced Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology Research Center (ADIR), Imam Khomeini Hospital)
  • Published : 2015.07.13
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Background: The aim of this study was to assess the role of the presence of a choline peak in 3 Tesla 1H magnetic resonance spectroscopy (MRS) for differentiating benign from malignant adnexal masses. Materials and Methods: A total of 46 adnexal masses (23 malignant and 23 benign) underwent 1H MRS study prior to surgery to assess the presence of choline peak. Results: A choline peak was detected in 16 malignant masses (69.5%) and was absent in the other 7 (30.5%). A choline peak was only detected in 6 (26%) of the benign adnexal masses. The presence of an MRS choline peak had a sensitivity of 69.5%, a specificity of 74%, a positive predictive value (PPV) of 72.7%, and a negative predictive value (NPV) of 71% for diagnosing malignant adnexal masses. A significant difference between the frequency of mean choline peaks in benign and malignant adnexal masses was observed (P value < 0.01). Conclusions: A 1H MRS choline peak is seen in malignant adnexal masses more frequently than the benign masses, and may be helpful for diagnosing malignant adnexal masses.

Keywords

References

  1. Arikan SK, Kasap B, Yetimalar H, et al (2014). Impact of prognostic factors on survival rates in patients with ovarian carcinoma. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, 15, 6087-94. https://doi.org/10.7314/APJCP.2014.15.15.6087
  2. Arun-Muthuvel V, Jaya V (2014). Pre-operative evaluation of ovarian tumors by risk of malignancy index, CA125 and ultrasound. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, 15, 2929-32. https://doi.org/10.7314/APJCP.2014.15.6.2929
  3. Bartella L, Morris EA, Dershaw DD, et al (2006). Proton MR spectroscopy with choline peak as malignancy marker improves positive predictive value for breast cancer diagnosis: preliminary study. Radiol, 239, 686-92. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2393051046
  4. Booth SJ, Pickles MD, Turnbull LW (2009). In vivo magnetic resonance spectroscopy of gynaecological tumours at 3.0 Tesla. BJOG, 116, 300-3. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0528.2008.02007.x
  5. Boyle P, Maisonneuve P, Autier P (2000). Update on cancer control in women. Int J Gynaecol Obstet, 70, 263-303. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0020-7292(00)00298-8
  6. Esseridou A, Di Leo G, Sconfienza LM, et al (2011). In vivo detection of choline in ovarian tumors using 3D magnetic resonance spectroscopy. Invest Radiol, 46, 377-82. https://doi.org/10.1097/RLI.0b013e31821690ef
  7. Karadag B, Kocak M, Kayikcioglu F, et al (2014). Risk for malignant and borderline ovarian neoplasms following basic preoperative evaluation by ultrasonography, ca125 level and age. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, 15, 8489-93. https://doi.org/10.7314/APJCP.2014.15.19.8489
  8. Kunpalin Y, Triratanachat S, Tantbirojn P (2014). Proportion of ovarian cancers in overall ovarian masses in Thailand. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, 15, 7929-34. https://doi.org/10.7314/APJCP.2014.15.18.7929
  9. Mohaghegh P, Rockall AG (2012). Imaging strategy for early ovarian cancer: characterization of adnexal masses with conventional and advanced imaging techniques. Radiographics, 32, 1751-73. https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.326125520
  10. Negendank W (1992). Studies of human tumors by MRS: a review. NMR Biomed, 5, 303-24. https://doi.org/10.1002/nbm.1940050518
  11. Oz G, Alger JR, Barker PB, et al (2014). Clinical proton MR spectroscopy in central nervous system disorders. Radiol, 270, 658-79. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.13130531
  12. Ozbay PO, Ekinci T, Caltekin MD, et al (2015). Comparative evaluation of the risk of malignancy index scoring systems (1-4) used in differential diagnosis of adnexal masses. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, 16, 345-9. https://doi.org/10.7314/APJCP.2015.16.1.345
  13. Simsek HS, Tokmak A, Ozgu E, et al (2014). Role of a risk of malignancy index in clinical approaches to adnexal masses. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, 15, 7793-7. https://doi.org/10.7314/APJCP.2014.15.18.7793
  14. Stanwell P, Russell P, Carter J, et al (2008). Evaluation of ovarian tumors by proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy at three Tesla. Invest Radiol, 43, 745-51. https://doi.org/10.1097/RLI.0b013e31817e9104
  15. Swindle P, McCredie S, Russell P, et al (2003). Pathologic characterization of human prostate tissue with proton MR spectroscopy. Radiol, 228, 144-51. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2281011808
  16. Takeuchi M, Matsuzaki K, Nishitani H (2010). Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging of ovarian tumors: differentiation of benign and malignant solid components of ovarian masses. J Comput Assist Tomogr, 34, 173-6. https://doi.org/10.1097/RCT.0b013e3181c2f0a2
  17. Tantipalakorn C, Wanapirak C, Khunamornpong S, et al (2014). IOTA simple rules in differentiating between benign and malignant ovarian tumors. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, 15, 5123-6. https://doi.org/10.7314/APJCP.2014.15.13.5123
  18. Thomassin-Naggara I, Bazot M, Darai E, et al (2008). Epithelial ovarian tumors: value of dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging and correlation with tumor angiogenesis. Radiol, 248, 148-59. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2481071120
  19. Thomassin-Naggara I, Toussaint I, Perrot N, et al (2011). Characterization of complex adnexal masses: value of adding perfusion- and diffusion-weighted MR imaging to conventional MR imaging. Radiol, 258, 793-803. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.10100751