He-Yue Liang1, Ya-Qin Huang1, Zhao-Xia Yang1, Meng-Su Zeng1, Sheng-Xiang Rao2. 1. Department of Radiology, Zhongshan Hospital of Fudan University and Shanghai Medical Imaging Institute, No180, Fenglin Road, Xuhui District, Shanghai, 200032, China. 2. Department of Radiology, Zhongshan Hospital of Fudan University and Shanghai Medical Imaging Institute, No180, Fenglin Road, Xuhui District, Shanghai, 200032, China. raoxray@163.com.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To determine if magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) histogram analyses can help predict response to chemotherapy in patients with colorectal hepatic metastases by using response evaluation criteria in solid tumours (RECIST1.1) as the reference standard. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Standard MRI including diffusion-weighted imaging (b=0, 500 s/mm(2)) was performed before chemotherapy in 53 patients with colorectal hepatic metastases. Histograms were performed for apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) maps, arterial, and portal venous phase images; thereafter, mean, percentiles (1st, 10th, 50th, 90th, 99th), skewness, kurtosis, and variance were generated. Quantitative histogram parameters were compared between responders (partial and complete response, n=15) and non-responders (progressive and stable disease, n=38). Receiver operator characteristics (ROC) analyses were further analyzed for the significant parameters. RESULTS: The mean, 1st percentile, 10th percentile, 50th percentile, 90th percentile, 99th percentile of the ADC maps were significantly lower in responding group than that in non-responding group (p=0.000-0.002) with area under the ROC curve (AUCs) of 0.76-0.82. The histogram parameters of arterial and portal venous phase showed no significant difference (p>0.05) between the two groups. CONCLUSION: Histogram-derived parameters for ADC maps seem to be a promising tool for predicting response to chemotherapy in patients with colorectal hepatic metastases. KEY POINTS: • ADC histogram analyses can potentially predict chemotherapy response in colorectal liver metastases. • Lower histogram-derived parameters (mean, percentiles) for ADC tend to have good response. • MR enhancement histogram analyses are not reliable to predict response.
PURPOSE: To determine if magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) histogram analyses can help predict response to chemotherapy in patients with colorectal hepatic metastases by using response evaluation criteria in solid tumours (RECIST1.1) as the reference standard. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Standard MRI including diffusion-weighted imaging (b=0, 500 s/mm(2)) was performed before chemotherapy in 53 patients with colorectal hepatic metastases. Histograms were performed for apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) maps, arterial, and portal venous phase images; thereafter, mean, percentiles (1st, 10th, 50th, 90th, 99th), skewness, kurtosis, and variance were generated. Quantitative histogram parameters were compared between responders (partial and complete response, n=15) and non-responders (progressive and stable disease, n=38). Receiver operator characteristics (ROC) analyses were further analyzed for the significant parameters. RESULTS: The mean, 1st percentile, 10th percentile, 50th percentile, 90th percentile, 99th percentile of the ADC maps were significantly lower in responding group than that in non-responding group (p=0.000-0.002) with area under the ROC curve (AUCs) of 0.76-0.82. The histogram parameters of arterial and portal venous phase showed no significant difference (p>0.05) between the two groups. CONCLUSION: Histogram-derived parameters for ADC maps seem to be a promising tool for predicting response to chemotherapy in patients with colorectal hepatic metastases. KEY POINTS: • ADC histogram analyses can potentially predict chemotherapy response in colorectal liver metastases. • Lower histogram-derived parameters (mean, percentiles) for ADC tend to have good response. • MR enhancement histogram analyses are not reliable to predict response.
Authors: Whitney B Pope; Hyun J Kim; Jing Huo; Jeffry Alger; Matthew S Brown; David Gjertson; Victor Sai; Jonathan R Young; Leena Tekchandani; Timothy Cloughesy; Paul S Mischel; Albert Lai; Phioanh Nghiemphu; Syed Rahmanuddin; Jonathan Goldin Journal: Radiology Date: 2009-07 Impact factor: 11.105
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: H A Marsman; A E van der Pool; J Verheij; J Padmos; F J W Ten Kate; R S Dwarkasing; T M van Gulik; J N M Ijzermans; C Verhoef Journal: J Surg Oncol Date: 2011-03-04 Impact factor: 3.454
Authors: W B Pope; A Lai; R Mehta; H J Kim; J Qiao; J R Young; X Xue; J Goldin; M S Brown; P L Nghiemphu; A Tran; T F Cloughesy Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2011-02-17 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: S De Bruyne; N Van Damme; P Smeets; L Ferdinande; W Ceelen; J Mertens; C Van de Wiele; R Troisi; L Libbrecht; S Laurent; K Geboes; M Peeters Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2012-05-17 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Shanshan Jiang; Tianyu Zou; Charles G Eberhart; Maria A V Villalobos; Hye-Young Heo; Yi Zhang; Yu Wang; Xianlong Wang; Hao Yu; Yongxing Du; Peter C M van Zijl; Zhibo Wen; Jinyuan Zhou Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2017-07-16 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Frederic Carsten Schmeel; Birgit Simon; Julian Alexander Luetkens; Frank Träber; Carsten Meyer; Leonard Christopher Schmeel; Amir Sabet; Samer Ezziddin; Hans Heinz Schild; Dariusch Reza Hadizadeh Journal: J Cancer Res Clin Oncol Date: 2017-03-19 Impact factor: 4.553
Authors: John M Creasy; Abhishek Midya; Jayasree Chakraborty; Lauryn B Adams; Camilla Gomes; Mithat Gonen; Kenneth P Seastedt; Elizabeth J Sutton; Andrea Cercek; Nancy E Kemeny; Jinru Shia; Vinod P Balachandran; T Peter Kingham; Peter J Allen; Ronald P DeMatteo; William R Jarnagin; Michael I D'Angelica; Richard K G Do; Amber L Simpson Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2018-06-19 Impact factor: 5.315