| Literature DB >> 27469349 |
Daniel Grossi Marconi1, Jose Humberto Tavares Guerreiro Fregnani2, Rodrigo Ribeiro Rossini3, Ana Karina Borges Junqueira Netto3, Fabiano Rubião Lucchesi3, Audrey Tieko Tsunoda2, Mitchell Kamrava4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Diffusion Weighted (DW) Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) has been studed in several cancers including cervical cancer. This study was designed to investigate the association of DW-MRI parameters with baseline clinical features and clinical outcomes (local regional control (LRC), disease free survival (DFS) and disease specific survival (DSS)) in cervical cancer patients treated with definitive chemoradiation.Entities:
Keywords: Cervical cancer; Chemoradiation; Diffusion weighted imaging; MRI
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27469349 PMCID: PMC4965898 DOI: 10.1186/s12885-016-2619-0
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Cancer ISSN: 1471-2407 Impact factor: 4.430
Fig. 1Magnetic resonance imaging examples of axial slices of: T2 weighted (left), diffusion weighted imaging (center), and region of interest drawn on an attenuation diffusion coefficient map (right)
Patient and treatment characteristics
|
| |
|---|---|
| Number of patients | 66 |
| Median age at diagnosis (range) | 51.8 (23.3–90.1) |
| Histology | Squamous: 54 (82 %) |
| Adenocarcinoma: 7 (11 %) | |
| Adenosquamous: 5 (8 %) | |
| Grade (differentiation) | Well: 4 (6 %) |
| Moderate: 43 (65 %) | |
| Poor: 19 (29 %) | |
| FIGO Stage (2009) | IB1-2: 2 (3 %) |
| IIA1-IIB: 42 (64 %) | |
| IIIA-B: 16 (24 %) | |
| IVA-B: 6 (9 %) | |
| Median External beam radiotherapy dose (range) | 44.92 Gy (39.6–59.4) |
| Median HDR Brachytherapy dose (range) | 27.05 Gy (21–28) |
| Median Total external beam and brachytherapy dose as an EQD2 (range) | 82.2 Gy (74–83.9) |
| Concurrent chemotherapy | 58 (88 %) |
Mean ADC values according to tumor stage, lymph node involvement, and MRI assessed disease extent
| ADCmin | ADCmean | ADCmax | ADCdeviation | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ( | ( | ( | ( |
| I-II ( | 0.375 | 0.855 | 1.485 | 0.224 |
| III-IV ( | 0.267 | 0.901 | 1.806 | 0.256 |
|
| ( | ( | ( | ( |
| Positive ( | 0.323 | 0.959 | 1.995 | 0.232 |
| Negative ( | 0.341 | 0.861 | 1.551 | 0.197 |
|
| ( | ( | ( | ( |
| Present ( | 0.332 | 0.867 | 1.618 | 0.223 |
| Absent ( | 0.404 | 0.898 | 1.371 | 0.177 |
|
| ( | ( | ( | ( |
| Present ( | 0.311 | 0.848 | 1.624 | 0.198 |
| Absent ( | 0.410 | 0.925 | 1.513 | 0.267 |
|
| ( | ( | ( | ( |
| Present ( | 0.353 | 0.904 | 1.702 | 0.192 |
| Absent ( | 0.339 | 0.854 | 1.542 | 0.231 |
|
| ( | ( | ( | ( |
| > 114.48 | 0.295 | 0.862 | 1.674 | 0.237 |
| < 114.48 | 0.383 | 0.877 | 1.508 | 0.206 |
aCalculated by multiplication of the tumor measures (left-right, anterior-posterior, cranial-caudal)
Univariate analysis for disease specific survival and disease free survival
| Disease specific survival | Disease free survival | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variable | Category |
| 3-y DSS |
| 3-y DFS |
|
| FIGO | I / II | 44 | 95.3 | 0.007 | 90.9 | 0.018 |
| III / IV | 22 | 72 | 72.7 | |||
| Lymph node | Positive | 40 | 79.1 | 0.015 | 74.9 | 0.024 |
| Negative | 26 | 100 | 100 | |||
| Parametrial Invasion | Present | 59 | 85.9 | 0.304 | 83 | 0.816 |
| Absent | 7 | 100 | 100 | |||
| Vaginal Invasion | Present | 47 | 84.3 | 0.265 | 82.9 | 0.850 |
| Absent | 19 | 94.7 | 89.5 | |||
| Adjacent Structures Invasion | Present | 21 | 71.1 | 0.005 | 69.3 | 0.015 |
| Absent | 45 | 95.3 | 93 | |||
| GTV (a) | <114.48 | 41 | 97.6 | 0.001 | 95.1 | 0.003 |
| >114.48 | 25 | 69.4 | 68 | |||
| ADCmin (a) | <0.488 |
|
| 0.060 | 90.9 | 0.073 |
| > 0.488 | 21 | 76.2 | 72.7 | |||
| ADCmean (a) | < 0.827 | 25 | 100 | 0.017 | 96 | 0.037 |
| > 0.827 | 41 | 79.3 | 77.9 | |||
| ADCmax (a) | < 1.838 | 51 | 93.9 | 0.002 | 90.2 | 0.053 |
| > 1.838 | 15 | 64.6 | 66 | |||
| ADCdev (a) | < 0.148 | 16 | 100 | 0.088 | 93.8 | 0.221 |
| > 0.148 | 50 | 83.2 | 81.9 | |||
(a)Cutoff values were defined by ROC curve analysis
Multivariate logistic regression models for local regional control
| Variables | Category (*1) |
| HR (*2) | 95 % CI |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ADCmin | < 0.488 | 45 | Ref. | |
| > 0.488 | 21 | 3.9 | 0.6–27.7 ( | |
| ADCmean | < 0.827 | 25 | Ref. | |
| > 0.827 | 41 | 1.7 | 0.2–17.7 ( | |
| ADCmax | < 1.838 | 51 | Ref. | |
| > 1.838 | 15 | 1.3 | 0.2–10.0 ( | |
| ADCdev | < 0.148 | 16 | Ref. | |
| > 0.148 | 50 | 0.9 | 0.1–9.7 ( |
HR hazard ratio, CI confidence interval, Ref reference
(*1) Cutoff values were defined by ROC curve analysis
(*2) Each model was adjusted by Gross Tumor Volume (GTV: cutoff value = 114.48)
Multivariate models for disease specific survival and disease free survival
| Disease specific survival | Disease free survival | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variable | Category (*1) |
| HR (*2) | 95 % CI | HR | 95 % CI |
| < 0.488 | 45 | Ref | Ref | |||
| ADCmin | > 0.488 | 21 | 4.4 | 1.1–18.5 ( | 3.6 | 1.1–12.1 ( |
| < 0.827 | 25 | Ref | Ref | |||
| ADCmean | > 0.827 | 41 | 277.3 | 0.0–2.7 ( | 4.9 | 0.6–39.5 ( |
| < 1.838 | 51 | Ref | Ref | |||
| ADCmax | > 1.838 | 15 | 4.3 | 1.0–19.3 ( | 2.1 | 0.6–7.3 ( |
| < 0.148 | 16 | Ref | Ref | |||
| ADCdev | > 0.148 | 50 | 202.5 | 0.0–2.4 ( | 2.7 | 0.4–21.1 ( |
HR hazard ratio, CI confidence interval, Ref reference
(*1) Cutoff values were defined by ROC curve analysis
(*2) Each model was adjusted by FIGO staging (I/II vs III/IV)
Fig. 2Kaplan Meyer curve for DFS
Fig. 3Kaplan Meyer curve for DSS