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


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.


Adnexal mass;magnetic resonance spectroscopy;choline;malignancy


  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.
  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.
  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.
  4. Booth SJ, Pickles MD, Turnbull LW (2009). In vivo magnetic resonance spectroscopy of gynaecological tumours at 3.0 Tesla. BJOG, 116, 300-3.
  5. Boyle P, Maisonneuve P, Autier P (2000). Update on cancer control in women. Int J Gynaecol Obstet, 70, 263-303.
  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.
  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.
  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.
  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.
  10. Negendank W (1992). Studies of human tumors by MRS: a review. NMR Biomed, 5, 303-24.
  11. Oz G, Alger JR, Barker PB, et al (2014). Clinical proton MR spectroscopy in central nervous system disorders. Radiol, 270, 658-79.
  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.
  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.
  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.
  15. Swindle P, McCredie S, Russell P, et al (2003). Pathologic characterization of human prostate tissue with proton MR spectroscopy. Radiol, 228, 144-51.
  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.
  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.
  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.
  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.