OBJECTIVES: To assess changes in apparent diffusion coefficient (ΔADC) and volume (ΔV) after neoadjuvant treatment (NT), and tumour regression grade (TRG) in gastro-oesophageal cancers (GEC), and to discriminate responders from non-responders. METHODS: Thirty-two patients with biopsy-proven locally-advanced GEC underwent diffusion weighted magnetic resonance imaging (DWI) pre- and post-NT. Lesion ADC, volume, ΔADC and ΔV were calculated. TRG 1-2-3 patients were classified as R; TRG 4-5 as non-responders. ΔADC-TRG and ΔV-TRG correlations, pre-NT and post-NT ADC, ΔADC and ΔV cut-off values for responders and non-responders were calculated. Two readers measured mean tumour ADCs and interobserver variability was calculated. (Spearman's and intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC]). RESULTS: The interobserver reproducibility was very good both for pre-NT (Spearman's rho = 0.8160; ICC = 0.8993) and post-NT (Spearman's rho = 0.8357; ICC = 0.8663). Responders showed lower pre-NT ADC (1.32 versus 1.63 × 10(-3) mm(2)/s; P = 0.002) and higher post-NT ADC (2.22 versus 1.51 × 10(-3) mm(2)/s; P = 0.001) than non-responders and ADC increased in responders (ΔADC, 85.45 versus -8.21 %; P = 0.00005). ΔADC inversely correlated with TRG (r = -0.71, P = 0.000004); no difference in ΔV between responders and non-responders (-50.92 % versus -14.12 %; P = 0.068) and no correlation ΔV-TRG (r = 0.02 P = 0.883) were observed. CONCLUSIONS: The ADC can be used to assess gastro-oesophageal tumour response to neoadjuvant treatment as a reliable expression of tumour regression. KEY POINTS: • DWI is now being used to assess many cancers. • Change in ADC measurements offer new information about oesophageal tumours. • ADC changes are more reliable than dimensional criteria in assessing neoadjuvant treatment. • Such ADC assessment could optimise management of locally advanced gastro-oesophageal cancers.
OBJECTIVES: To assess changes in apparent diffusion coefficient (ΔADC) and volume (ΔV) after neoadjuvant treatment (NT), and tumour regression grade (TRG) in gastro-oesophageal cancers (GEC), and to discriminate responders from non-responders. METHODS: Thirty-two patients with biopsy-proven locally-advanced GEC underwent diffusion weighted magnetic resonance imaging (DWI) pre- and post-NT. Lesion ADC, volume, ΔADC and ΔV were calculated. TRG 1-2-3 patients were classified as R; TRG 4-5 as non-responders. ΔADC-TRG and ΔV-TRG correlations, pre-NT and post-NT ADC, ΔADC and ΔV cut-off values for responders and non-responders were calculated. Two readers measured mean tumour ADCs and interobserver variability was calculated. (Spearman's and intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC]). RESULTS: The interobserver reproducibility was very good both for pre-NT (Spearman's rho = 0.8160; ICC = 0.8993) and post-NT (Spearman's rho = 0.8357; ICC = 0.8663). Responders showed lower pre-NT ADC (1.32 versus 1.63 × 10(-3) mm(2)/s; P = 0.002) and higher post-NT ADC (2.22 versus 1.51 × 10(-3) mm(2)/s; P = 0.001) than non-responders and ADC increased in responders (ΔADC, 85.45 versus -8.21 %; P = 0.00005). ΔADC inversely correlated with TRG (r = -0.71, P = 0.000004); no difference in ΔV between responders and non-responders (-50.92 % versus -14.12 %; P = 0.068) and no correlation ΔV-TRG (r = 0.02 P = 0.883) were observed. CONCLUSIONS: The ADC can be used to assess gastro-oesophageal tumour response to neoadjuvant treatment as a reliable expression of tumour regression. KEY POINTS: • DWI is now being used to assess many cancers. • Change in ADC measurements offer new information about oesophageal tumours. • ADC changes are more reliable than dimensional criteria in assessing neoadjuvant treatment. • Such ADC assessment could optimise management of locally advanced gastro-oesophageal cancers.
Authors: P Therasse; S G Arbuck; E A Eisenhauer; J Wanders; R S Kaplan; L Rubinstein; J Verweij; M Van Glabbeke; A T van Oosterom; M C Christian; S G Gwyther Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2000-02-02 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Kuei C Lee; Bradford A Moffat; Anne F Schott; Rachel Layman; Steven Ellingworth; Rebecca Juliar; Amjad P Khan; Mark Helvie; Charles R Meyer; Thomas L Chenevert; Alnawaz Rehemtulla; Brian D Ross Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2007-01-15 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Dow-Mu Koh; Erica Scurr; David Collins; Baris Kanber; Andrew Norman; Martin O Leach; Janet E Husband Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2007-04 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Steven H Lin; Jingya Wang; Pamela K Allen; Arlene M Correa; Dipen M Maru; Stephen G Swisher; Wayne L Hofstetter; Zhongxing Liao; Jaffer A Ajani Journal: J Gastrointest Oncol Date: 2015-02
Authors: Francesco Giganti; Elena Orsenigo; Paolo Giorgio Arcidiacono; Roberto Nicoletti; Luca Albarello; Alessandro Ambrosi; Annalaura Salerno; Antonio Esposito; Maria Chiara Petrone; Damiano Chiari; Carlo Staudacher; Alessandro Del Maschio; Francesco De Cobelli Journal: Gastric Cancer Date: 2015-01-23 Impact factor: 7.370
Authors: Alicia S Borggreve; Lucas Goense; Hylke J F Brenkman; Stella Mook; Gert J Meijer; Frank J Wessels; Marcel Verheij; Edwin P M Jansen; Richard van Hillegersberg; Peter S N van Rossum; Jelle P Ruurda Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2019-03-05 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Francesco Giganti; Alessandro Ambrosi; Antonio Esposito; Alessandro Del Maschio; Francesco De Cobelli Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2017-01-30 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Francesco Giganti; Alessandro Ambrosi; Maria C Petrone; Carla Canevari; Damiano Chiari; Annalaura Salerno; Paolo G Arcidiacono; Roberto Nicoletti; Luca Albarello; Elena Mazza; Francesca Gallivanone; Luigi Gianolli; Elena Orsenigo; Antonio Esposito; Carlo Staudacher; Alessandro Del Maschio; Francesco De Cobelli Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2016-10-21 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Francesco Giganti; Annalaura Salerno; Alessandro Ambrosi; Damiano Chiari; Elena Orsenigo; Antonio Esposito; Luca Albarello; Elena Mazza; Carlo Staudacher; Alessandro Del Maschio; Francesco De Cobelli Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2015-09-21 Impact factor: 3.469