Article Data

  • Views 496
  • Dowloads 107

Original Research

Open Access

Diffusion magnetic resonance in cervical carcinoma: the role of apparent diffusion coefficient in the evaluation of treatment response

  • G.M. Barelli1,*,
  • F. Carbonetti1
  • V. De Sanctis2
  • I. Martini1
  • P. Bonome2
  • C. Briani1
  • E. Iannicelli1

1Radiology Unit, Sapienza University of Rome, Sant’Andrea Hospital

2 Rome, Italy

3Radiotherapy Unit, Sapienza University of Rome, Sant’Andrea Hospital

4 Rome, Italy

DOI: 10.12892/ejgo4588.2019 Vol.40,Issue 1,February 2019 pp.91-96

Accepted: 13 March 2018

Published: 10 February 2019

*Corresponding Author(s): G.M. Barelli E-mail: giuliamarta.barelli@gmail.com

Abstract

Purpose: The aim of the study was to determinate the role of apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) in order to find cut-off values in the evaluation of treatment response. Materials and Methods: A retrospective study was undertaken on MRIs of three groups of patients: 17 with histologically proven cervical carcinoma (group 1), 16 with complete regression after chemo-radiotherapy (group 2), and 46 without pathology (group 3). Three non-overlapping ROIs were manually drawn through neoplastic tissue and normal cervical areas,. regions of interest (ROIs) median values were calculated. Student t-test, ANOVA test, receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves, and Youden Index were performed. Results: The most important data was obtained by ROC curve and Youden index calculated between free from disease merged group (groups 2+3) and ill patients (group 1): 1.18 x10 -3mm 2/s (94% sensibility, 100% specificity), was the cut-off ADC value. Values below this cut-off could be considered as recurrent pathology with high accuracy. Conclusions: ADC represents a fundamental quantitative tool in follow-up of chemo-radiant treatment response in advanced cervical carcinoma.

Keywords

ADC mapping; Chemoradiation; Diffusion weighted magnetic resonance; Quantitative study; Residual cervical carcinoma

Cite and Share

G.M. Barelli,F. Carbonetti,V. De Sanctis,I. Martini,P. Bonome,C. Briani,E. Iannicelli. Diffusion magnetic resonance in cervical carcinoma: the role of apparent diffusion coefficient in the evaluation of treatment response. European Journal of Gynaecological Oncology. 2019. 40(1);91-96.

References

[1] Jemal A., Siegel R., Xu J., Ward E.: “Cancer statistics, 2010”. CA Cancer J. Clin., 2010, 60, 277.

[2] Kesic V., Rodolakis A., Denschlag D., Schneider A., Morice P., Amant F., Reed N.: “Fertility preserving management in gynecologic cancer patients: the need for centralization”. Int. J. Gynecol. Cancer, 2010, 20, 1613e9.

[3] Pecorelli S., Zigliani L., Odicino F.: “Revised FIGO staging for carcinoma of the cervix”. Int. J. Gynaecol. Obstet., 2009, 105, 107.

[4] Edge S.B., Byrd D.R., Compton C.C., Fritz A.G., Greene F.L., Trotti A.: “Cervix uteri”. AJCC Cancer Staging Manual. 7th ed. New York, NY: Springer, 2010, 395.

[5] Balleyquier C., Sala E., Da Cunha T., Bergman A., Brkljacic B., Danza F., et al.: “Staging of uterine cervical cancer with MRI: guidelines of the European Society of Urogenital Radiology”. Eur. Radiol., 2011, 21, 1102.

[6] Querleu D., Morrow C.P.: “Classification of radical hysterectomy”. Lancet. Oncol., 2008, 9, 297.

[7] Denny L., Hacker N.F., Gori J., Jones H.W. III, Ngan H.Y.S., Pecorelli S.: FIGO Committee on Gynecologic Oncology. Staging Classifications and Clinical Practice. Guidelines for Gynaecologic Cancers. Available at: http://www.figo.org/publications/ staging_ classifications

[8] Thomeer M.G., Gerestein C., Spronk S., Van Doorn H.C., Van der Ham E., Hunink M.G.: “Clinical examination versus magnetic resonance imaging in the pretreatment staging of cervical carcinoma: Systematic review and meta-analysis”. Eur. Radiol., 2013, 23, 2005.

[9] Dhoot N.M., Kumar V., Shinagare A., Kataki A.C., Barmon D., Bhuyan U.: “Evaluation of carcinoma cervix using magnetic resonance imaging: correlation with clinical FIGO staging and impact on management”. J. Med. Imaging Radiat. Oncol., 2012, 56, 58.

[10] Stenstedt K., Hellstrom A.C., Fridsten S., Blomqvist L.: “Impact of MRI in the management and staging of cancer of the uterine cervix”. Acta Oncol., 2011, 50, 420.

[11] Le Bihan D.: “Apparent diffusion coefficient and beyond: what diffusion MRimaging can tell us about tissue structure”. Radiology, 2013, 268, 318.

[12] Naganawa S., Sato C., Kumada H., Ishigaki T., Miura S., Takizawa O.: “Apparent diffusion coefficient in cervical cancer of the uterus: comparison with the normal uterine cervix”. Eur. Radiol., 2005, 15, 71.

[13] Kuang F., Ren J., Zhong Q., Liyuan F., Huan Y., Chen Z.: “The value of apparent diffusion coefficient in the assessment of cervical cancer”. Eur. Radiol., 2013, 23, 1050.

[14] Kilickesmez O., Bayramoglu S., Inci E., Cimilli T., Kayhan A.: “Quantitative diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging of normal and diseased uterine zones”. Acta Radiol., 2009, 50, 340.

[15] Dhoot N.M., Kumar V., Shinagare A., Kataki A.C., Barmon D., Bhuyan U.: “Evaluation of carcinoma cervix using magnetic resonance imaging: Correlation with clinical FIGO staging and impact on management”. J. Med. Imaging Radiat. Oncol., 2012, 56, 5 .

[16] Padhani A.R., Liu G., Koh D.M., Chenevert T.L., Thoeny H.C., Takahara T., et al.: “Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging as a cancer biomarker: consensus and recommendations”. Neoplasia, 2009, 11, 102.

[17] Whittaker C.S., Coady A., Culver L., Rustin G., Padwick M., Padhani A.R.: “Diffusion-weighted MR imaging of female pelvic tumors: a pictorial review”. Radiographics, 2009, 29, 759.

[18] Hameeduddin A., Sahdev A.: “Diffusion-weighted imaging and dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI in assessing response and recurrent disease in gynaecological malignancies”. Cancer Imaging, 2015, 15, 3.

[19] Schreuder, M.D., Lensing R., Stoker J., Bipat S.: “Monitoring Treatment Response in Patients Undergoing Chemoradiotherapy for Locally Advanced Uterine Cervical Cancer by Additional Diffusion-Weighted Imaging: A Systematic Review”. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging, 2015, 42, 572.

[20] Okamoto Y., Tanaka Y.O., Nishida M., Tsunoda H., Yoshikawa H., Itai Y.: “MR imaging of the uterine cervix: imaging-pathologic correlation”. Radiographics, 2003, 23, 425.

[21] Charles-Edwards E.M., Messiou C., Morgan V.A., De Silva S.S., McWhinney N.A., Katesmark M., et al.: “Diffusion-weighted imaging in cervical cancer with an endovaginal technique: potential value for improving tumor detection in stage Ia and Ib1 disease”. Radiology, 2008, 249, 541.

[22] Xue H.D., Li S., Sun F., Sun H.Y., Jin Z.Y., Yanq J.X., Yu M.: “Clinical application of body diffusion weighted MR imaging in the diagnosis and preoperative N staging of cervical cancer”. Chinese Medical Sciences Journal, 2008, 23, 133.

[23] McVeigh P.Z., Syed A.M., Milosevic M., Fyles A., Haider M.A.: “Diffusion-weighted MRI in cervical cancer”. Eur. Radiol., 2008, 18, 1058.

[24] Chen J., Zhang Y., Liang B., Yang Z.: “The utility of diffusion-weighted MR imaging in cervical cancer”. Eur. J. Radiol., 2010, 74, e101.

[25] Ho K.C., Lin G., Wang J.J., Lai C.H., Chanq C.J., Yen T.C.: “Correlation of apparent diffusion coefficients measured by 3T diffusion-weighted MRI and SUV from FDG PET/CT in primary cervical cancer”. Eur. J. Nucl. Med. Mol. Imaging, 2009, 36, 200.

[26] Harry V.N., Semple S.I., Gilbert F.J., Parkin D.E.: “Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging in the early detection of response to chemoradiation in cervical cancer”. Gynecol. Oncol., 2008, 111, 213.

[27] Hoogendam J.P., Klerkx W.M., de Kort G.A., Bipat S., Zweemer R.P., Sie-Go D.M., et al.: “The influence of the b-value combination on apparent diffusion coefficient based differentiation between malignant and benign tissue in cervical cancer”. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging, 2010, 32, 376.

[28] Levy A., Caramella C., Chargari C., Medjhoul A., Rey A., Zareski E., et al.: “Accuracy of diffusion-weighted echo-planar MR imaging and ADC mapping in the evaluation of residual cervical carcinoma after radiation therapy”. Gynecol. Oncol., 2011, 123, 110.

[29] Vincens E., Balleyquier C., Rey A., Uzan C., Zareski E., Gouy S., et al.: “Accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging in predicting residual disease in patients treated for stage IB2/II cervical carcinoma with chemoradiation therapy: correlation of radiologic findings with surgicopathologic results”. Cancer, 2008, 113, 2158.

Abstracted / indexed in

Science Citation Index Expanded (SciSearch) Created as SCI in 1964, Science Citation Index Expanded now indexes over 9,500 of the world’s most impactful journals across 178 scientific disciplines. More than 53 million records and 1.18 billion cited references date back from 1900 to present.

Biological Abstracts Easily discover critical journal coverage of the life sciences with Biological Abstracts, produced by the Web of Science Group, with topics ranging from botany to microbiology to pharmacology. Including BIOSIS indexing and MeSH terms, specialized indexing in Biological Abstracts helps you to discover more accurate, context-sensitive results.

Google Scholar Google Scholar is a freely accessible web search engine that indexes the full text or metadata of scholarly literature across an array of publishing formats and disciplines.

JournalSeek Genamics JournalSeek is the largest completely categorized database of freely available journal information available on the internet. The database presently contains 39226 titles. Journal information includes the description (aims and scope), journal abbreviation, journal homepage link, subject category and ISSN.

Current Contents - Clinical Medicine Current Contents - Clinical Medicine provides easy access to complete tables of contents, abstracts, bibliographic information and all other significant items in recently published issues from over 1,000 leading journals in clinical medicine.

BIOSIS Previews BIOSIS Previews is an English-language, bibliographic database service, with abstracts and citation indexing. It is part of Clarivate Analytics Web of Science suite. BIOSIS Previews indexes data from 1926 to the present.

Journal Citation Reports/Science Edition Journal Citation Reports/Science Edition aims to evaluate a journal’s value from multiple perspectives including the journal impact factor, descriptive data about a journal’s open access content as well as contributing authors, and provide readers a transparent and publisher-neutral data & statistics information about the journal.

Submission Turnaround Time

Conferences

Top