PURPOSE: To determine the role of diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) in evaluating response to chemoradiotherapy in patients with uterine cervical cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A search was performed in MEDLINE and EMBASE from January 2005 to April 2014 using search terms related to uterine cervical cancer and magnetic resonance imaging. Two reviewers independently checked the studies for inclusion criteria, patient population, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) parameters and analysis, follow-up for treatment response, apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values, and quality assessment. RESULTS: Nine studies with 231 patients were included. International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) staging varied from Ib1 to IVb and mean age from 42 to 67 years. When baseline and after treatment pooled mean ADC values were compared, complete responders showed higher increase (0.88 × 10(-3) mm(2) /s to 1.50 × 10(-3) mm(2) /s; Δ0.62 × 10(-3) mm(2) /s) compared to partial responders (1.03 × 10(-3) mm(2) /s to 1.42 × 10(-3) mm(2) /s; Δ0.39 × 10(-3) mm(2) /s) and to nonresponders (0.87 × 10(-3) mm(2) /s to 1.18 × 10(-3) mm(2) /s; Δ0.31 × 10(-3) mm(2) /s). Individual studies also showed that an ADC of ≤0.31 was only seen in nonresponders and an increase of ADC of ≥0.62 was only seen in complete responders. The number of datasets for monitoring early response (at 2 or 4 weeks of therapy) were low and comparable increases in pooled mean ADC values between complete responders, partial responders, and nonresponders were seen. Data on quality assessment showed high risk of bias concerning patient selection, DWI evaluation, and flow and timing. CONCLUSION: DWI can be used for monitoring treatment response after treatment, but not for the early response monitoring.
PURPOSE: To determine the role of diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) in evaluating response to chemoradiotherapy in patients with uterine cervical cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A search was performed in MEDLINE and EMBASE from January 2005 to April 2014 using search terms related to uterine cervical cancer and magnetic resonance imaging. Two reviewers independently checked the studies for inclusion criteria, patient population, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) parameters and analysis, follow-up for treatment response, apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values, and quality assessment. RESULTS: Nine studies with 231 patients were included. International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) staging varied from Ib1 to IVb and mean age from 42 to 67 years. When baseline and after treatment pooled mean ADC values were compared, complete responders showed higher increase (0.88 × 10(-3) mm(2) /s to 1.50 × 10(-3) mm(2) /s; Δ0.62 × 10(-3) mm(2) /s) compared to partial responders (1.03 × 10(-3) mm(2) /s to 1.42 × 10(-3) mm(2) /s; Δ0.39 × 10(-3) mm(2) /s) and to nonresponders (0.87 × 10(-3) mm(2) /s to 1.18 × 10(-3) mm(2) /s; Δ0.31 × 10(-3) mm(2) /s). Individual studies also showed that an ADC of ≤0.31 was only seen in nonresponders and an increase of ADC of ≥0.62 was only seen in complete responders. The number of datasets for monitoring early response (at 2 or 4 weeks of therapy) were low and comparable increases in pooled mean ADC values between complete responders, partial responders, and nonresponders were seen. Data on quality assessment showed high risk of bias concerning patient selection, DWI evaluation, and flow and timing. CONCLUSION: DWI can be used for monitoring treatment response after treatment, but not for the early response monitoring.
Authors: A L Valentini; M Miccò; B Gui; M Giuliani; E Rodolfino; A M Telesca; T Pasciuto; A Testa; M A Gambacorta; G Zannoni; V Rufini; A Giordano; V Valentini; G Scambia; R Manfredi Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2018-01-09 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Ryan L Brunsing; Natalie M Schenker-Ahmed; Nathan S White; J Kellogg Parsons; Christopher Kane; Joshua Kuperman; Hauke Bartsch; Andrew Karim Kader; Rebecca Rakow-Penner; Tyler M Seibert; Daniel Margolis; Steven S Raman; Carrie R McDonald; Nikdokht Farid; Santosh Kesari; Donna Hansel; Ahmed Shabaik; Anders M Dale; David S Karow Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2016-08-16 Impact factor: 4.813