Martin D Pickles1, Martin Lowry, Peter Gibbs. 1. From the Centre for Magnetic Resonance Investigations, Hull York Medical School at University of Hull, Hull Royal Infirmary, Hull, United Kingdom.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to determine if associations exist between pretreatment dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-based metrics (vascular kinetics, texture, shape, size) and survival intervals. Furthermore, the aim of this study was to compare the prognostic value of DCE-MRI parameters against traditional pretreatment survival indicators. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective study was undertaken. Approval had previously been granted for the retrospective use of such data, and the need for informed consent was waived. Prognostic value of pretreatment DCE-MRI parameters and clinical data was assessed via Cox proportional hazards models. The variables retained by the final overall survival Cox proportional hazards model were utilized to stratify risk of death within 5 years. RESULTS: One hundred twelve subjects were entered into the analysis. Regarding disease-free survival-negative estrogen receptor status, T3 or higher clinical tumor stage, large (>9.8 cm) MR tumor volume, higher 95th percentile (>79%) percentage enhancement, and reduced (>0.22) circularity represented the retained model variables. Similar results were noted for the overall survival with negative estrogen receptor status, T3 or higher clinical tumor stage, and large (>9.8 cm) MR tumor volume, again all been retained by the model in addition to higher (>0.71) 25th percentile area under the enhancement curve.Accuracy of risk stratification based on either traditional (59%) or DCE-MRI (65%) survival indicators performed to a similar level. However, combined traditional and MR risk stratification resulted in the highest accuracy (86%). CONCLUSIONS: Multivariate survival analysis has revealed that model-retained DCE-MRI variables provide independent prognostic information complementing traditional survival indicators and as such could help to appropriately stratify treatment.
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to determine if associations exist between pretreatment dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-based metrics (vascular kinetics, texture, shape, size) and survival intervals. Furthermore, the aim of this study was to compare the prognostic value of DCE-MRI parameters against traditional pretreatment survival indicators. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective study was undertaken. Approval had previously been granted for the retrospective use of such data, and the need for informed consent was waived. Prognostic value of pretreatment DCE-MRI parameters and clinical data was assessed via Cox proportional hazards models. The variables retained by the final overall survival Cox proportional hazards model were utilized to stratify risk of death within 5 years. RESULTS: One hundred twelve subjects were entered into the analysis. Regarding disease-free survival-negative estrogen receptor status, T3 or higher clinical tumor stage, large (>9.8 cm) MR tumor volume, higher 95th percentile (>79%) percentage enhancement, and reduced (>0.22) circularity represented the retained model variables. Similar results were noted for the overall survival with negative estrogen receptor status, T3 or higher clinical tumor stage, and large (>9.8 cm) MR tumor volume, again all been retained by the model in addition to higher (>0.71) 25th percentile area under the enhancement curve.Accuracy of risk stratification based on either traditional (59%) or DCE-MRI (65%) survival indicators performed to a similar level. However, combined traditional and MR risk stratification resulted in the highest accuracy (86%). CONCLUSIONS: Multivariate survival analysis has revealed that model-retained DCE-MRI variables provide independent prognostic information complementing traditional survival indicators and as such could help to appropriately stratify treatment.
Authors: Manoj Mannil; Jakob M Burgstaller; Arjun Thanabalasingam; Sebastian Winklhofer; Michael Betz; Ulrike Held; Roman Guggenberger Journal: Skeletal Radiol Date: 2018-03-01 Impact factor: 2.199
Authors: Thibaud P Coroller; Vishesh Agrawal; Vivek Narayan; Ying Hou; Patrick Grossmann; Stephanie W Lee; Raymond H Mak; Hugo J W L Aerts Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2016-04-13 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: M M Panzeri; C Losio; A Della Corte; E Venturini; A Ambrosi; P Panizza; F De Cobelli Journal: Contrast Media Mol Imaging Date: 2018-05-03 Impact factor: 3.161