Quantitative evaluation of myelosuppression after chemotherapy for patients with ovarian cancer using material decomposition in dual-energy computed tomography

Objective: To demonstrate feasibility of quantifying myelosuppression after chemother-apy for patients with ovarian cancer (OC) using fat density measurement on material decomposition (MD) images in dual-energy computed tomography (DECT). Materials and methods: Fifty-seven patients with OC after chemotherapy underwent DECT. MD using fat and hydroxyapatite (HAP) as basis material pair was performed. Regions of interest (ROIs) of 20 mm2 were placed on bone marrow of ilia and femoral shafts bilaterally at level of coronal hip joint and the third sagittal lumbar vertebra to measure fat density on FAT (HAP) MD images. Eight characteristics (age, pathological type, International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage, unilateral/bilateral, chemotherapy protocol and cycle, days after therapy (DAT), and ROI location) were recorded. Fat densities in ilia and femoral shafts were compared bilaterally with paired sample t tests and among 3 ROI locations with Kruskal-Wallis tests. Regression and correlations were made between fat density and 8 characteristics. Regression equations, correlation coefficients, scatterplot and normal probability plot (P-P) are provided. Results: There were no statistically significant differences in fat density in ilia or femoral shafts bilaterally (p > 0.05). Average fat densities were significantly different with 916.93 ± 9.3 in ilia, 927.04 ± 11.86 in femoral shaft, and 932.18 ± 8.45 in lumbar vertebra (p < 0.001). Regression equation was Y = 923.26 − 0.29 × age + 0.05 × pathological-type − 0.94 × FIGO stage + 0.82 × unilateral/bilateral − 0.54 × chemotherapy-protocol + 0.52 × chemotherapy-cycle + 0.01 × DAT + 7.63 × ROI location, with correlation coefficients with age, DAT and ROI location at −0.23, 0.16 and 0.53, respectively (p < 0.05). Conclusions: Myelosuppression after chemotherapy manifests as fat substitute and can be quantified by measuring fat density on FAT (HAP) images. Fat density was significantly correlated with patient age, DAT and measurement locations.

Ovarian cancer; Chemotherapy; Myelosuppression; Dual-energy CT; Material decomposition; Fat quantification

[1] Wu LY, Wang C, Kong BH, Lu CH, Liu ZL, Jiang XQ, et al. Guidelines for diagnosis and treatment of ovarian cancer (version. 2022). 2022. Available at: http://www.nhc.gov.cn/yzygj/s7659/ 202204/a0e67177df1f439898683e1333957c74.shtml (Accessed: 3 April 2022).

[2] Armstrong DK, Alvarez RD, Bakkum-Gamez JN, Barroilhet L, Behbakht K, Berchuck A, et al. Ovarian Cancer, Version 2.2020, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network. 2021; 19: 191–226.

[3] Colombo N, Sessa C, du Bois A, Ledermann J, McCluggage WG, McNeish I, et al. ESMO-ESGO consensus conference recommendations on ovarian cancer: pathology and molecular biology, early and advanced stages, borderline tumours and recurrent disease. Annals of Oncology. 2019; 30: 672–705.

[4] Armstrong DK, Alvarez RD, Backes FJ, Bakkum-Gamez JN, Barroilhet L, Behbakht K, et al. NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology ovarian cancer including fallopian tube cancer and primary peritoneal cancer (version 1. 2022). 2022. Available at: www.nccn.org/guidelines (Accessed: 18 January 2022).

[5] Ghirardi V, Trozzi R, Giudice E, Scambia G, Fagotti A. Hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) in the management of advanced ovarian cancer. A literature review. European Journal of Gynaecological Oncology. 2022; 43: 335–340.

[6] Ntatsis K, Papantoni E, Kyziridis D, Kalakonas A, Hristakis C, Tzavara C, et al. Ovarian cancer: 20-year experience with cytoreductive surgery and perioperative intraperitoneal chemotherapy. Journal of Balkan Union of Oncology. 2021; 26: 1754–1761.

[7] Wright JD, Hou YJ, Burke WM, Tergas AI, Chen L, Hu JC, et al. Utilization and toxicity of alternative delivery methods of adjuvant chemotherapy for ovarian cancer. Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2016; 127: 985–991.

[8] Han C, Kong WM. Interpretion of progress in diagnosis and treatment of ovarian cancer, fallopian tube cancer and primary peritoneal cancer combined guidelines in gynecological malignant tumor with 2021 International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) and 2021 National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN). Chinese Journal of Clinicians. 2022; 50: 270–274. (In Chinese)

[9] Dunton CJ. Management of treatment-related toxicity in advanced ovarian cancer. The Oncologist. 2002; 7: 11–19.

[10] Gréen H, Khan MS, Jakobsen-Falk I, Åvall-Lundqvist E, Peterson C. Impact of CYP3a5*3 and CYP2C8-HapC on paclitaxel/carboplatin-induced myelosuppression in patients with ovarian cancer. Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences. 2011; 100: 4205–4209.

[11] Bjorn N, Jakobsen Falk I, Vergote I, Green H. ABCB1 variation affects myelosuppression, progression-free survival and overall survival in paclitaxel/carboplatin-treated ovarian cancer patients. Basic & Clinical Pharmacology & Toxicology. 2018; 123: 277–287.

[12] Skirnisdottir I, Lindborg K, Sorbe B. Adjuvant chemotherapy with carboplatin and taxane compared with single drug carboplatin in early stage epithelial ovarian carcinoma. Oncology Reports. 2007; 18: 1249–1256.

[13] Dai P, Wang YL, Wang JH, Lin ZY, Zhang K, Xu D, et al. Effect of spleen polypeptide on bone marrow suppression induced by chemotherapy in advanced ovarian cancer. Chinese Journal of Cancer Prevention and Treatment. 2018; 25: 437–441. (In Chinese)

[14] Timmerman D, Planchamp F, Bourne T, Landolfo C, du Bois A, Chiva L, et al. ESGO/ISUOG/IOTA/ESGE consensus statement on pre-operative diagnosis of ovarian tumors. International Journal of Gynecologic Cancer. 2021; 31: 961–982.

[15] Ma D, Hua KQ, Xiang Y, Liu CR, Liu AJ, Li B, et al. Guidelines for diagnosis and treatment of cervical cancer (version. 2022). 2022. Available at: http://www.nhc.gov.cn/yzygj/s7659/202204/a0e67177df1f439898683e1333957c74.shtml (Accessed: 3 April 2022).

[16] Abu-Rustum NR, Yashar CM, Bradley K, Brooks R, Campos SM, Chino J, et al. NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology cervical cancer (version 1. 2022). 2022. Available at: www.nccn.org/guidelines (Accessed: 26 October 2021).

[17] Jiang XQ, Xie Q, Xia JD, Liang CH, Peng GH, Zhang J, et al. Postirradiation changes of the pelvis in patients with cervical cancer: assessment with MRI. Chinese Journal of Radiology. 2004; 38: 721–725.(In Chinese)

[18] Wen XM. Predictive value of pelvic bone marrow reserve function with IDEAL-IQ imaging for patients of cervical cancer after concurrent chemoradiotherapy [master’s thesis]. Guangzhou Medical University. 2021.

[19] Goo HW, Goo JM. Dual-Energy CT: new horizon in medical imaging. Korean Journal of Radiology. 2017; 18: 555.

[20] Rajiah P, Sundaram M, Subhas N. Dual-Energy CT in musculoskeletal imaging: what is the role beyond gout? American Journal of Roentgenology. 2019; 213: 493–505.

[21] Starekova J, Hernando D, Pickhardt PJ, Reeder SB. Quantification of liver fat content with CT and MRI: state of the art. Radiology. 2021; 301: 250–262.

[22] Molwitz I, Leiderer M, Özden C, Yamamura J. Dual-energy computed tomography for fat quantification in the liver and bone marrow: a literature review. RoFo. 2020; 192: 1137–1153.

[23] Gassenmaier S, Kähm K, Walter SS, Machann J, Nikolaou K, Bongers MN. Quantification of liver and muscular fat using contrast-enhanced dual source dual energy computed tomography compared to an established multi-echo Dixon MRI sequence. European Journal of Radiology. 2021; 142: 109845.

[24] Molwitz I, Leiderer M, McDonough R, Fischer R, Ozga A, Ozden C, et al. Skeletal muscle fat quantification by dual-energy computed tomography in comparison with 3T MR imaging. European Radiology. 2021; 31: 7529–7539.

[25] Araki T, Hammer M, Sodickson A. Fat content quantification using dual-energy CT for differentiation of anterior mediastinal lesions from normal or hyperplastic thymus. Current Problems in Diagnostic Radiology. 2022; 51: 334–339.

[26] Lundbom J, Bierwagen A, Bodis K, Apostolopoulou M, Szendroedi J, Müssig K, et al. 1H-MRS of femoral red and yellow bone marrow fat composition and water content in healthy young men and women at 3 T. Magnetic Resonance Materials in Physics, Biology and Medicine. 2019; 32: 591–597.

[27] Chiarilli MG, Pizzi AD, Mastrodicasa D, Febo MP, Cardinali B, Consorte B, et al. Bone marrow magnetic resonance imaging: physioloc and pathologic findings that radiologist should know. La Radiologia Medica. 2021; 126: 264–276.

[28] Sasiponganan C, Yan K, Pezeshk P, Xi Y, Chhabra A. Advanced MR imaging of bone marrow: quantification of signal alterations on T1-weighted Dixon and T2-weighted Dixon sequences in red marrow, yellow marrow, and pathologic marrow lesions. Skeletal Radiology. 2020; 49: 541–548.

[29] Yang B. Analysis of related factors of chemotherapy-induced myelosup-pression in gynecological malignant tumors and clinical prevention and treatment [master’s thesis]. Lanzhou University. 2019.

[30] Luo HL. Clinical analysis of 98 cases of myelosuppression after chemotherapy in ovarian malignant tumors [master’s thesis]. Nanchang University. 2019.