| Literature DB >> 26337954 |
Ying Liu1, Haoran Sun2, Renju Bai3, Zhaoxiang Ye4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To investigate the feasibility of DWI in evaluating early therapeutic response of uterine cervical cancer to concurrent chemoradiation (CCR) and establish optimal time window for early detection of treatment response.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26337954 PMCID: PMC4558843 DOI: 10.1186/s13014-015-0493-6
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Radiat Oncol ISSN: 1748-717X Impact factor: 3.481
Fig. 1MRI and DWI images of uterine cervical cancer in group CR ((a–b), before CCR; (c–d), postT1; (e–f), postT2; (g–h), postT3; (i–j), postT4; (k–l), postT5). At base-line MRI, axial T2-weighted images (a) show a hyperintense tumor with well-defined margin before therapy. At postT1 (c) and postT2 (e), no significant change in size was shown. At postT3 (g), tumor showed a decrease in size. At postT4, tumor reduced in size markedly (i). At postT5, no residual tumor could be seen on T2-weighted images (k). The ADC values were 0.816 × 10−3 mm2/s at base-line (b), 0.935 × 10−3 mm2/s at postT1 (d), 1.090 × 10−3 mm2/s at postT2 (f), 1.110 × 10−3 mm2/s at postT3 (h),1.280 × 10−3 mm2/s at postT4 (j), and 1.350 × 10−3 mm2/s at postT5 (l)
Pre-treatment ADC value and tumor diameter of CR and PR
| Pre-treatment ADC(10−3 mm2/s) | Pre-treatment tumor diameter (mm) | |
|---|---|---|
| CR ( | 0.810 ± 0.015 | 43.400 ± 7.465 |
| PR ( | 0.863 ± 0.088 | 46.223 ± 16.260 |
Comparison of ADC value during treatment between CR and PR
| CR(10−3 mm2/s) | PR(10−3 mm2/s) |
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| PostT1 | 0.958 ± 0.073 | 0.987 ± 0.096 | −0.719 | 0.477 |
| PostT2 | 1.036 ± 0.118 | 1.062 ± 0.110 | −0.552 | 0.585 |
| PostT3 | 1.213 ± 0.981 | 1.154 ± 0.131 | 1.094 | 0.282 |
| PostT4 | 1.379 ± 0.132 | 1.283 ± 0.141 | 1.621 | 0.115 |
| PostT5 | 1.507 ± 0.132 | 1.425 ± 0.140 | 1.389 | 0.175 |
Fig. 2Graph shows that comparison of percentage ADC change (γADC) between CR and PR at each time point. Mean value was labeled at the top of the bar. There was no significant difference in γADC at postT1 (P = 0.286) or postT2 (P = 0.357), while γADC in CR group was significantly greater than that of PR at postT3 (P = 0.007), postT4 (P = 0.001), and postT5 (P = 0.019)
Fig. 3Graph shows that the ROC curve for predicting the early treatment response by using γADC. With the cut-off value of 35.4 %, the sensitivity and specificity for predicting tumor response group of CR were 100 % and 73.1 % respectively
Comparison of tumour diameter during treatment between CR and PR
| CR(mm) | PR(mm) |
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| PostT1 | 42.200 ± 6.590 | 45.385 ± 16.037 | −0.509 | 0.614 |
| PostT2 | 41.186 ± 6.228 | 42.638 ± 16.812 | −0.222 | 0.826 |
| PostT3 | 40.229 ± 6.187 | 39.246 ± 17.634 | 0.144 | 0.887 |
| PostT4 | 23.957 ± 9.907 | 29.408 ± 17.094 | −0.802 | 0.429 |
Comparison of γD during treatment between CR and PR
| CR (%) | PR (%) |
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| PostT1 | 2.5 ± 0.3 | 1.7 ± 0.2 | 0.741 | 0.464 |
| PostT2 | 4.7 ± 0.6 | 8.6 ± 0.7 | −1.305 | 0.202 |
| PostT3 | 6.7 ± 0.8 | 16.8 ± 1.3 | −1.962 | 0.059 |
| PostT4 | 46.1 ± 16.6 | 38.2 ± 16.6 | 1.107 | 0.277 |