{"paper_id":"c8f18a6a-7807-477d-b873-c0d1fa23e183","body_text":"Abstract\nObjectives\nThis study aims to evaluate the diagnostic value of amide proton transfer-weighted (APTw) imaging in distinguishing cystic or predominantly cystic ovarian lesions.\nMaterials and methods\n49 patients underwent APTw imaging at 3T-MR before surgery, with 20 volunteers serving as the control group. Participants were divided into the following groups: solid components of normal ovaries (Group A, n = 29), solid components of malignant lesions (Group B, n = 7), cystic fluid of follicles (Group C, n = 31), cystic fluid of benign lesions (Group D, n = 46), functional cysts (Group d1, n = 8), endometriomas (Group d2, n = 28), cystadenomas (Group d3, n = 10), and cystic fluid of malignant lesions (Group E, n = 12). Independent t-tests or Mann-Whitney U tests and one-way ANOVA were used to compare group differences. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was used to evaluate the diagnostic efficacy in distinguishing between different lesions.\nResults\nFor solid components, significant differences in MTRasym values were observed between Groups A and B (P < 0.001). For cystic components, significant differences were found between Groups C and D, C and E, d1 and d2, d2 and d3, d1 and d3, C and d2, C and d3, E and d1, and E and d2 (all P < 0.01). ROC analysis of these results showed high AUC values (ranging from 0.813 to 1.0), all P < 0.05.\nConclusions\nAPTw can reveal differences in MTRasym values between normal and diseased ovarian tissues, demonstrating high clinical value in differentiating functional cysts, endometriomas, and cystadenomas, as well as distinguishing benign lesions (functional cysts or endometriomas) from malignant tumors.\nSimilar content being viewed by others\nData availability\nNo datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.\nReferences\nReinhold C, Rockall A, Sadowski E A, et al. Ovarian-Adnexal Reporting Lexicon for MRI: A White Paper of the ACR Ovarian-Adnexal Reporting and Data Systems MRI Committee. J Am Coll Radiol, 2021; 18: 713–729\nWang Q, Yu D, Wang F. Clinical and Computed Tomographic Features of Ovarian Lesions in Infants, Children, and Adolescents: A Series of 222 Cases. J Pediatr Adolesc Gynecol, 2021; 34: 387–393\nFarghaly S A. Current diagnosis and management of ovarian cysts. Clin Exp Obstet Gynecol, 2014; 41: 609–12\nAckerman S, Irshad A, Lewis M, et al. Ovarian cystic lesions: a current approach to diagnosis and management. Radiol Clin North Am, 2013; 51: 1067–85\nBaseviciene I, Martinkiene I, Basevicius A, et al. Functional ovarian cysts in girls. Medicina (Kaunas), 2003; 39: 902–9\nDoret M, Raudrant D. Functional ovarian cysts and the need to remove them. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol, 2001; 100: 1–4\nNg S W, Norwitz S G, Taylor H S, et al. Endometriosis: The Role of Iron Overload and Ferroptosis. Reprod Sci, 2020; 27: 1383–1390\nPark S B, Lee J B. MRI features of ovarian cystic lesions. J Magn Reson Imaging, 2014; 40: 503–15.\nPenny SM. Ovarian Cancer: An Overview. Radiol Technol. 2020; 91:561–575\nImaoka I, Wada A, Kaji Y, et al. Developing an MR imaging strategy for diagnosis of ovarian masses. Radiographics, 2006; 26: 1431–48\nZhang H, Mao Y, Chen X, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging radiomics in categorizing ovarian masses and predicting clinical outcome: a preliminary study. Eur Radiol, 2019; 29: 3358–3371\nNakai A, Koyama T, Fujimoto K, et al. Functional MR imaging of the uterus. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am, 2008; 16: 673– 84, ix\nKoyama T, Togashi K. Functional MR imaging of the female pelvis. J Magn Reson Imaging, 2007; 25: 1101–12\nVandecaveye V, Dresen R, De Keyzer F. Novel imaging techniques in gynaecological cancer. Curr Opin Oncol, 2017; 29: 335–342\nWei M, Bo F, Cao H, et al. Diagnostic performance of dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging for malignant ovarian tumors: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Acta Radiol, 2021; 62: 966–978\nSadowski E A, Bennett L K, Chan M R, et al. Nephrogenic systemic fibrosis: risk factors and incidence estimation. Radiology; 2007, 243: 148–57\nLevy A, Medjhoul A, Caramella C, et al. Interest of diffusion-weighted echo-planar MR imaging and apparent diffusion coefficient mapping in gynecological malignancies: a review. J Magn Reson Imaging, 2011; 33: 1020–7\nKim H J, Lee S Y, Shin Y R, et al. The Value of Diffusion-Weighted Imaging in the Differential Diagnosis of Ovarian Lesions: A Meta-Analysis. PLoS One, 2016; 11: e0149465\nThomassin-Naggara I, Daraï E, Cuenod C A, et al. Contribution of diffusion-weighted MR imaging for predicting benignity of complex adnexal masses. Eur Radiol, 2009; 19: 1544–52\nPankowska A, Kochalska K, Łazorczyk A, et al. Chemical exchange saturation transfer (CEST) as a new method of signal obtainment in magnetic resonance molecular imaging in clinical and research practice. Pol J Radiol, 2019; 84: e147-e152\nDou W, Lin C E, Ding H, et al. Chemical exchange saturation transfer magnetic resonance imaging and its main and potential applications in pre-clinical and clinical studies. Quant Imaging Med Surg, 2019; 9: 1747–1766\nZhou J, Zaiss M, Knutsson L, et al. Review and consensus recommendations on clinical APT-weighted imaging approaches at 3T: Application to brain tumors. Magn Reson Med, 2022; 88: 546–574\nJones K M, Pollard A C, Pagel M D. Clinical applications of chemical exchange saturation transfer (CEST) MRI. J Magn Reson Imaging, 2018; 47: 11–27\nIshimatsu K, Nishie A, Takayama Y, et al. Amide proton transfer imaging for differentiating benign ovarian cystic lesions: Potential of first time right. Eur J Radiol, 2019; 120: 108656\nLi Y, Lu X, Chen L, et al. Identification of ovarian endometriotic cysts in cystic lesions of the ovary by amide proton transfer weighted imaging and R2 * mapping. Clin Radiol 2023; 78: e106-e12\nYu Y, Song X, Zeng Z, et al. Amide proton transfer weighted MRI in differential diagnosis of ovarian masses with cystic components: A preliminary study. Magn Reson Imaging. 2023; 103:216–223\nMeng N, Wang X, Sun J, et al. Evaluation of amide proton transfer-weighted imaging for endometrial carcinoma histological features: a comparative study with diffusion kurtosis imaging. Eur Radiol, 2021; 31: 8388–8398\nMeng N, Fang T, Feng P, et al. Amide Proton Transfer-Weighted Imaging and Multiple Models Diffusion-Weighted Imaging Facilitates Preoperative Risk Stratification of Early-Stage Endometrial Carcinoma. J Magn Reson Imaging, 2021; 54: 1200–1211\nZhou J, Lal B, Wilson D A, et al. Amide proton transfer (APT) contrast for imaging of brain tumors. Magn Reson Med, 2003; 50: 1120–6\nSalhotra A, Lal B, Laterra J, et al. Amide proton transfer imaging of 9L gliosarcoma and human glioblastoma xenografts. NMR Biomed, 2008; 21: 489–97\nGrossman R, Tyler B, Brem H, et al. Growth properties of SF188/V + human glioma in rats in vivo observed by magnetic resonance imaging. J Neurooncol, 2012; 110: 315–23\nZhou J, Heo H Y, Knutsson L, et al. APT-weighted MRI: Techniques, current neuro applications, and challenging issues. J Magn Reson Imaging, 2019; 50: 347–364\nFriedrich M, Friedrich D, Kraft C, et al. Multimodal Treatment of Primary Advanced Ovarian Cancer. Anticancer Res, 2021; 41: 3253–3260\nOhya A, Fujinaga Y. Magnetic resonance imaging findings of cystic ovarian tumors: major differential diagnoses in five types frequently encountered in daily clinical practice. Jpn J Radiol, 2022; 40: 1213–1234\nSun P Z, Zhou J, Sun W, et al. Detection of the ischemic penumbra using pH-weighted MRI. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab, 2007; 27: 1129–36\nZheng Y, Wang X, Zhao X. Magnetization Transfer and Amide Proton Transfer MRI of Neonatal Brain Development. Biomed Res Int, 2016; 2016: 3052723\nLi W N, Hsiao K Y, Wang C A, et al. Extracellular vesicle-associated VEGF-C promotes lymphangiogenesis and immune cells infiltration in endometriosis. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, 2020; 117: 25859–25868\nSymons L K, Miller J E, Tyryshkin K, et al. Neutrophil recruitment and function in endometriosis patients and a syngeneic murine model. Faseb j, 2020; 34: 1558–1575\nCottrell G S. Roles of proteolysis in regulation of GPCR function. Br J Pharmacol, 2013; 168: 576–90\nHallberg I, Plassmann M, Olovsson M, et al. Suspect and non-target screening of ovarian follicular fluid and serum - identification of anthropogenic chemicals and investigation of their association to fertility. Environ Sci Process Impacts, 2021; 23: 1578–1588\nVelazquez A, Reyes A, Chargoy J, et al. Amino acid and protein concentrations of human follicular fluid. Fertil Steril, 1977; 28: 96–100\nTanaka Y, Nakai G, Yamamura K, et al. Analysis of MRI Values and Hemoglobin and Total Protein Concentrations of Cystic Ovarian Tumors. J Magn Reson Imaging, 2019; 49: 1133–1140\nMarko J, Marko K I, Pachigolla S L, et al. Mucinous Neoplasms of the Ovary: Radiologic-Pathologic Correlation. Radiographics, 2019; 39: 982–997\nKlemi P J. Pathology of mucinous ovarian cystadenomas. I. Argyrophil and argentaffin cells and epithelial mucosubstances. Acta Pathol Microbiol Scand A, 1978; 86a: 465–70\nAuthor information\nAuthors and Affiliations\nContributions\nDD and LC contribute equally to this article and should be considered co-first authors. DD: Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Writing - review & editing. LC: Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Software, Writing - original draft. CM: Conceptualization, Methodology, Resources. BY: Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation. DP: Software, Supervision, Writing - review & editing. TZ: Software, Methodology, Resources. DY: Conceptualization, Methodology, Resources, Supervision. FW: Conceptualization, Methodology, Supervision, Writing - review & editing.All authors reviewed the manuscript.\nCorresponding author\nEthics declarations\nCompeting interests\nThe authors declare no competing interests.\nAdditional information\nPublisher’s note\nSpringer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.\nRights and permissions\nSpringer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.\nAbout this article\nCite this article\nDing, D., Chang, L., Men, C. et al. Does amide proton transfer-weighted MRI have diagnostic and differential value in ovarian cystic and predominantly cystic lesion?. Abdom Radiol 50, 3262–3271 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-024-04768-w\nReceived:\nRevised:\nAccepted:\nPublished:\nVersion of record:\nIssue date:\nDOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-024-04768-w","source_license":"public-domain-us","license_restricted":false}