BACKGROUND: Histological necrosis, the current standard for response evaluation in osteosarcoma, is attainable after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. OBJECTIVE: To establish the role of surrogate markers of response prediction and evaluation using MRI in the early phases of the disease. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-one treatment-naïve osteosarcoma patients received three cycles of neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by surgery during 2006-2008. All patients underwent baseline and post-chemotherapy conventional, diffusion-weighted and dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI. Taking histological response (good response ≥90% necrosis) as the reference standard, various parameters of MRI were compared to it. A tumor was considered ellipsoidal; volume, average tumor plane and its relative value (average tumor plane relative/body surface area) was calculated using the standard formula for ellipse. Receiver operating characteristic curves were generated to assess best threshold and predictability. After deriving thresholds for each parameter in univariable analysis, multivariable analysis was carried out. RESULTS: Both pre-and post-chemotherapy absolute and relative-size parameters correlated well with necrosis. Apparent diffusion coefficient did not correlate with necrosis; however, on adjusting for volume, significant correlation was found. Thus, we could derive a new parameter: diffusion per unit volume. CONCLUSION: In osteosarcoma, chemotherapy response can be predicted and evaluated by conventional and diffusion-weighted MRI early in the disease course and it correlates well with necrosis. Further, newly derived parameter diffusion per unit volume appears to be a sensitive substitute for response evaluation in osteosarcoma.
BACKGROUND: Histological necrosis, the current standard for response evaluation in osteosarcoma, is attainable after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. OBJECTIVE: To establish the role of surrogate markers of response prediction and evaluation using MRI in the early phases of the disease. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-one treatment-naïve osteosarcomapatients received three cycles of neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by surgery during 2006-2008. All patients underwent baseline and post-chemotherapy conventional, diffusion-weighted and dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI. Taking histological response (good response ≥90% necrosis) as the reference standard, various parameters of MRI were compared to it. A tumor was considered ellipsoidal; volume, average tumor plane and its relative value (average tumor plane relative/body surface area) was calculated using the standard formula for ellipse. Receiver operating characteristic curves were generated to assess best threshold and predictability. After deriving thresholds for each parameter in univariable analysis, multivariable analysis was carried out. RESULTS: Both pre-and post-chemotherapy absolute and relative-size parameters correlated well with necrosis. Apparent diffusion coefficient did not correlate with necrosis; however, on adjusting for volume, significant correlation was found. Thus, we could derive a new parameter: diffusion per unit volume. CONCLUSION: In osteosarcoma, chemotherapy response can be predicted and evaluated by conventional and diffusion-weighted MRI early in the disease course and it correlates well with necrosis. Further, newly derived parameter diffusion per unit volume appears to be a sensitive substitute for response evaluation in osteosarcoma.
Authors: Saminathan S Nathan; Gene R DiResta; Jorge E Casas-Ganem; Bang H Hoang; Rebecca Sowers; Rui Yang; Andrew G Huvos; Richard Gorlick; John H Healey Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2005-03-15 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Jie Deng; Frank H Miller; Thomas K Rhee; Kent T Sato; Mary F Mulcahy; Laura M Kulik; Riad Salem; Reed A Omary; Andrew C Larson Journal: J Vasc Interv Radiol Date: 2006-07 Impact factor: 3.464
Authors: G Bacci; P Picci; P Ruggieri; M Mercuri; M Avella; R Capanna; A Brach Del Prever; A Mancini; F Gherlinzoni; G Padovani Journal: Cancer Date: 1990-06-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: C Baunin; G Schmidt; K Baumstarck; C Bouvier; J C Gentet; A Aschero; A Ruocco; B Bourlière; G Gorincour; C Desvignes; N Colavolpe; G Bollini; P Auqier; P Petit Journal: Skeletal Radiol Date: 2012-02-09 Impact factor: 2.199
Authors: James C Davis; Najat C Daw; Fariba Navid; Catherine A Billups; Jianrong Wu; Armita Bahrami; Jesse J Jenkins; Scott E Snyder; Wilburn E Reddick; Victor M Santana; M Beth McCarville; Junyu Guo; Barry L Shulkin Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2017-06-13 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Wayne L Monsky; Bedro Jin; Chris Molloy; Robert J Canter; Chin Shang Li; Tzu C Lin; Daniel Borys; Walter Mack; Isaac Kim; Michael H Buonocore; Abhijit J Chaudhari Journal: Anticancer Res Date: 2012-11 Impact factor: 2.480