| Literature DB >> 25303288 |
Yiqun Sun1, Tong Tong1, Sanjun Cai2, Rui Bi3, Chao Xin1, Yajia Gu1.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We elected to analyze the correlation between the pre-treatment apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) and the clinical, histological, and immunohistochemical status of rectal cancers.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2014 PMID: 25303288 PMCID: PMC4193754 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0109371
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Correlation between Histological, Clinical Parameters, and ADC values.
| Parameters | N(%) | ADC values (Mean ± SD) × 10−3 mm2/s | P value |
|
| 0.123 | ||
| Signet-ring carcinoma | 2 | 1.15 ± 0.08 | |
| Adenocarcinoma | 44 | 1.30 ± 0.21 | |
| Mucinous adenocarcinoma | 3 | 1.40 ± 0.22 | |
|
| 0.515 | ||
| Poorly differentiated | 8 | 1.20 ± 0.24 | |
| Moderately differentiated | 37 | 1.31 ± 0.23 | |
| Well differentiated | 4 | 1.32 ± 0.14 | |
|
|
| ||
| T1 | 4 | 1.53 ± 0.29 | |
| T2 | 23 | 1.38 ± 0.16 | |
| T3 | 19 | 1.22 ± 0.27 | |
| T4 | 3 | 1.19 ± 0.19 | |
|
|
| ||
| N0 | 13 | 1.42 ± 0.21 | |
| N1 | 12 | 1.32 ± 0.17 | |
| N2 | 24 | 1.22 ± 0.21 | |
|
| 0.061 | ||
| Negative | 14 | 1.37 ± 0.23 | |
| Positive | 35 | 1.25 ± 0.18 | |
|
|
| ||
| Negative | 11 | 1.43 ± 0.16 | |
| Positive | 38 | 1.25 ± 0.19 | |
|
| 0.890 | ||
| Negative | 40 | 1.28 ± 0.21 | |
| Positive | 9 | 1.29 ± 0.13 | |
|
| 0.312 | ||
| Negative | 46 | 1.31 ± 0.22 | |
| Positive | 3 | 1.18 ± 0.13 | |
|
| 0.691 | ||
| <5 ng/ml | 26 | 1.31± 0.20 | |
| ≥ 5 ng/ml | 23 | 1.29 ± 0.23 | |
|
|
| ||
| <35 g/ml | 8 | 1.49 ± 0.26 | |
| ≥ 35 g/ml | 41 | 1.26 ± 0.19 |
*Independent-samples t-test.
The Kruskal-Wallis test.
CRM means circumferential resection margin.
Correlations between Immunohistochemical Parameters and ADC values.
| Parameters | N | ADC value (Mean ± SD) x 10−3 mm2/s | P value | |
| r | ||||
| P21 | (−) | 30 | 1.32 ± 0.25 | 0.756 |
| (+) | 19 | 1.30 ± 0.20 | – | |
| P53 | (−) | 35 | 1.31 ± 0.23 | 0.776 |
| (+) | 14 | 1.29 ± 0.19 | – | |
| Her2/neu | (−) | 44 | 1.29 ± 0.16 | 0.976 |
| (+) | 5 | 1.28 ± 0.07 | – | |
| CD44 | (−) | 11 | 1.32 ± 0.22 | 0.251 |
| (+) | 38 | 1.23 ± 0.20 | – | |
| Ki-67 | 68.97 ± 16.98 % | 49 | 1.30 ± 0.21 | 0.026 |
| r = −0.318 | ||||
| AgNOR | 2.96 ± 0.84 | 49 | 1.30 ± 0.21 | 0.030 |
| r = −0.310 | ||||
*Independent-samples t-test.
*Spearman's correlation analysis.
Figure 1Comparison of mean AD values of tumors according to the T stage.
The whiskers represent the standard deviation.
Figure 2The relationships between ADC values and Ki-67 LI (A) and ADC values and AgNOR count (B).
Figure 3ADC values were measured in tumors with different Ki-67 LI values.
In a low Ki-67 LI (Ki-67 value = 50% and AgNOR count = 2), which was limited to the bowel wall, without mesorectal lymph nodes, the ACD value (1.27 × 10−3 mm2/s, ROIs = 434 mm2) was higher than in a high Ki-67 LI (A: b = 800 s/mm2c image, B: ADC map, C: Ki-67 Immunohistochemical staining). In the high Ki-67 LI range (Ki-67 LI = 90% and AgNOR count = 4), in a tumor staged as T3N2, the ADC value (1.00 × 10−3 mm2/s, ROIs = 438.3 mm2) was lower (D: b = 800 s/mm2c image, E: ADC map, F: Ki-67 Immunohistochemical staining).