L Liu1, N Wu, H Ouyang, J-R Dai, W-H Wang. 1. 1 Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Beijing, China.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to assess the efficacy of diffusion-weighted MRI (DWI) in monitoring response to radiotherapy in high-risk prostate cancer (PC). METHODS: This retrospective study included 78 patients with high-risk PC undergoing 3.0-T MRI (supplemented by DWI) before and after intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT). Based on follow-up clinical examinations, patients were divided into two groups: the recurrence group (patients who suffered biochemical/clinical recurrence within 3 years, n = 13) and the non-recurrence group (patients who were recurrence free for over 3 years, n = 65). The apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values before and after IMRT were compared between these two groups. The receiver-operating characteristics (ROC) analysis was carried out to investigate the discriminatory capability for pre- and post-IMRT ADC values. RESULTS: The overall ADC values were 1.04 ± 0.18 × 10(-3) mm(2) s(-1) for PCs before IMRT and 1.45 ± 0.15 × 10(-3) mm(2) s(-1) after IMRT (p < 0.001). A statistically significant difference in post-IMRT ADC values was noted between patients with and without recurrence (1.27 ± 0.14 × 10(-3) mm(2) s(-1) vs 1.49 ± 0.12 × 10(-3)mm(2) s(-1); p < 0.001), although there was no statistical difference between them in pre-IMRT ADC values (1.00 ± 0.17 × 10(-3) mm(2) s(-1) vs 1.05 ± 0.18 × 10(-3) mm(2) s(-1); p = 0.31). The ROC curve analysis revealed that the post-IMRT ADC values could help identify patients suffering recurrences (area under the curve, 0.88; p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Marked increase in ADC values was observed in PC after radiotherapy, especially in good responders. DWI is a valuable tool for monitoring the response to radiotherapy. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: This study examined the relationship between ADC changes and tumour response to treatment of PC.
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to assess the efficacy of diffusion-weighted MRI (DWI) in monitoring response to radiotherapy in high-risk prostate cancer (PC). METHODS: This retrospective study included 78 patients with high-risk PC undergoing 3.0-T MRI (supplemented by DWI) before and after intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT). Based on follow-up clinical examinations, patients were divided into two groups: the recurrence group (patients who suffered biochemical/clinical recurrence within 3 years, n = 13) and the non-recurrence group (patients who were recurrence free for over 3 years, n = 65). The apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values before and after IMRT were compared between these two groups. The receiver-operating characteristics (ROC) analysis was carried out to investigate the discriminatory capability for pre- and post-IMRT ADC values. RESULTS: The overall ADC values were 1.04 ± 0.18 × 10(-3) mm(2) s(-1) for PCs before IMRT and 1.45 ± 0.15 × 10(-3) mm(2) s(-1) after IMRT (p < 0.001). A statistically significant difference in post-IMRT ADC values was noted between patients with and without recurrence (1.27 ± 0.14 × 10(-3) mm(2) s(-1) vs 1.49 ± 0.12 × 10(-3)mm(2) s(-1); p < 0.001), although there was no statistical difference between them in pre-IMRT ADC values (1.00 ± 0.17 × 10(-3) mm(2) s(-1) vs 1.05 ± 0.18 × 10(-3) mm(2) s(-1); p = 0.31). The ROC curve analysis revealed that the post-IMRT ADC values could help identify patients suffering recurrences (area under the curve, 0.88; p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Marked increase in ADC values was observed in PC after radiotherapy, especially in good responders. DWI is a valuable tool for monitoring the response to radiotherapy. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: This study examined the relationship between ADC changes and tumour response to treatment of PC.
Authors: James Mohler; Robert R Bahnson; Barry Boston; J Erik Busby; Anthony D'Amico; James A Eastham; Charles A Enke; Daniel George; Eric Mark Horwitz; Robert P Huben; Philip Kantoff; Mark Kawachi; Michael Kuettel; Paul H Lange; Gary Macvicar; Elizabeth R Plimack; Julio M Pow-Sang; Mack Roach; Eric Rohren; Bruce J Roth; Dennis C Shrieve; Matthew R Smith; Sandy Srinivas; Przemyslaw Twardowski; Patrick C Walsh Journal: J Natl Compr Canc Netw Date: 2010-02 Impact factor: 11.908
Authors: Ahmedin Jemal; Taylor Murray; Elizabeth Ward; Alicia Samuels; Ram C Tiwari; Asma Ghafoor; Eric J Feuer; Michael J Thun Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2005 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 508.702
Authors: Matthew J Wieduwilt; Francisco Valles; Samar Issa; Caroline M Behler; James Hwang; Michael McDermott; Patrick Treseler; Joan O'Brien; Marc A Shuman; Soonmee Cha; Lloyd E Damon; James L Rubenstein Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2012-01-06 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Wei-Ching Lin; Valdair F Muglia; Gyl E B Silva; Salomão Chodraui Filho; Rodolfo B Reis; Antonio C Westphalen Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2016-03-23 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Robert H Press; Hui-Kuo G Shu; Hyunsuk Shim; James M Mountz; Brenda F Kurland; Richard L Wahl; Ella F Jones; Nola M Hylton; Elizabeth R Gerstner; Robert J Nordstrom; Lori Henderson; Karen A Kurdziel; Bhadrasain Vikram; Michael A Jacobs; Matthias Holdhoff; Edward Taylor; David A Jaffray; Lawrence H Schwartz; David A Mankoff; Paul E Kinahan; Hannah M Linden; Philippe Lambin; Thomas J Dilling; Daniel L Rubin; Lubomir Hadjiiski; John M Buatti Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2018-06-30 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Andrew McPartlin; Lucy Kershaw; Alan McWilliam; Marcus Ben Taylor; Clare Hodgson; Marcel van Herk; Ananya Choudhury Journal: Ther Adv Urol Date: 2018-10-11