Guangyu Wu1, Guiqin Liu1, Wen Kong2, Jianxun Qu3, Shiteng Suo1, Xiaosheng Liu4, Jianrong Xu5, Jin Zhang6. 1. Department of Radiology, Renji Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, No. 1630, Dongfang Road, Pudong, Shanghai, 200120, China. 2. Department of Urinary Surgery, Renji Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, No. 1630, Dongfang Road, Pudong, Shanghai, 200120, China. 3. GE Healthcare, Shanghai, China. 4. Department of Radiology, Renji Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, No. 1630, Dongfang Road, Pudong, Shanghai, 200120, China. liu.mia@qq.com. 5. Department of Radiology, Renji Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, No. 1630, Dongfang Road, Pudong, Shanghai, 200120, China. renjixujr@163.com. 6. Department of Urinary Surgery, Renji Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, No. 1630, Dongfang Road, Pudong, Shanghai, 200120, China. med-zhangjin@vip.sina.com.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the utility of MR R2*-mapping and the optimal time-point for assessing the response of pulmonary metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) to anti-angiogenic targeted therapy (aATT). MATERIALS AND METHODS: The exploration-sample group and the validation-sample group consisted of 22 and 16 patients. The parameters of MR R2*-mapping, including the R2* value at each time-point (R2*base, R2*1cyc and R2*2cyc) and change between different time-points (R2*(1cyc-base)/base, R2*(2cyc-base)/base and R2*(2cyc-1cyc)/1cyc), were evaluated with a receiver-operating-characteristic analysis, and a cut-off value derived from the clinical outcome was applied to the Kaplan-Meier method to assess the value of R2* mapping and Response-Evaluation-Criteria in Solid Tumours (RECIST) during treatment evaluation. RESULTS: The inter-, intra-observer agreements and inter-scan consistency were excellent (p > 0.80). For the exploration-sample group, the areas under the curve for the parameters of MR R2* mapping were 0.55, 0.60, 0.83, 0.64, 0.88 and 0.83 for R2*base, R2*1cyc, R2*2cyc, R2*(1cyc-base)/base, R2*(2cyc-base)/base and R2*(2cyc-1cyc)/1cyc. For the validation-sample, R2*(2cyc-base)/base better predicted progression-free survival (p = 0.03) than RECIST and other R2* mapping parameters with a lower p value. CONCLUSION: Assessing aATT outcome based on changes in the R2* value between baseline and second treatment is more accurate than assessment at other time-points and assessment based on the RECIST. KEY POINTS: • The inter-scan consistency of R2*-mapping in pulmonary mRCC are excellent. • The intra-/inter-observer agreement of R2* mapping in pulmonary mRCC are excellent. • Using changes in R2* value between baseline/after second-treatment is better than RECIST. • The choice of baseline/after second treatment is better than other time-points.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the utility of MR R2*-mapping and the optimal time-point for assessing the response of pulmonary metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) to anti-angiogenic targeted therapy (aATT). MATERIALS AND METHODS: The exploration-sample group and the validation-sample group consisted of 22 and 16 patients. The parameters of MR R2*-mapping, including the R2* value at each time-point (R2*base, R2*1cyc and R2*2cyc) and change between different time-points (R2*(1cyc-base)/base, R2*(2cyc-base)/base and R2*(2cyc-1cyc)/1cyc), were evaluated with a receiver-operating-characteristic analysis, and a cut-off value derived from the clinical outcome was applied to the Kaplan-Meier method to assess the value of R2* mapping and Response-Evaluation-Criteria in Solid Tumours (RECIST) during treatment evaluation. RESULTS: The inter-, intra-observer agreements and inter-scan consistency were excellent (p > 0.80). For the exploration-sample group, the areas under the curve for the parameters of MR R2* mapping were 0.55, 0.60, 0.83, 0.64, 0.88 and 0.83 for R2*base, R2*1cyc, R2*2cyc, R2*(1cyc-base)/base, R2*(2cyc-base)/base and R2*(2cyc-1cyc)/1cyc. For the validation-sample, R2*(2cyc-base)/base better predicted progression-free survival (p = 0.03) than RECIST and other R2* mapping parameters with a lower p value. CONCLUSION: Assessing aATT outcome based on changes in the R2* value between baseline and second treatment is more accurate than assessment at other time-points and assessment based on the RECIST. KEY POINTS: • The inter-scan consistency of R2*-mapping in pulmonary mRCC are excellent. • The intra-/inter-observer agreement of R2* mapping in pulmonary mRCC are excellent. • Using changes in R2* value between baseline/after second-treatment is better than RECIST. • The choice of baseline/after second treatment is better than other time-points.
Authors: P Therasse; S G Arbuck; E A Eisenhauer; J Wanders; R S Kaplan; L Rubinstein; J Verweij; M Van Glabbeke; A T van Oosterom; M C Christian; S G Gwyther Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2000-02-02 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Andrew Dennis Smith; Shetal N Shah; Brian I Rini; Michael L Lieber; Erick M Remer Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2010-06 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Bernard Escudier; Tim Eisen; Walter M Stadler; Cezary Szczylik; Stéphane Oudard; Michael Siebels; Sylvie Negrier; Christine Chevreau; Ewa Solska; Apurva A Desai; Frédéric Rolland; Tomasz Demkow; Thomas E Hutson; Martin Gore; Scott Freeman; Brian Schwartz; Minghua Shan; Ronit Simantov; Ronald M Bukowski Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2007-01-11 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Robert J Motzer; Thomas E Hutson; Piotr Tomczak; M Dror Michaelson; Ronald M Bukowski; Olivier Rixe; Stéphane Oudard; Sylvie Negrier; Cezary Szczylik; Sindy T Kim; Isan Chen; Paul W Bycott; Charles M Baum; Robert A Figlin Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2007-01-11 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Pierre-Hugues Vivier; Pippa Storey; Hersh Chandarana; Akira Yamamoto; Kristopher Tantillo; Umer Khan; Jeff L Zhang; Eric E Sigmund; Henry Rusinek; James S Babb; Michael Bubenheim; Vivian S Lee Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2013-07 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: Joachim Drevs; Ralph Müller-Driver; Christine Wittig; Stefan Fuxius; Norbert Esser; Harald Hugenschmidt; Moritz A Konerding; Peter R Allegrini; Jeanette Wood; Jürgen Hennig; Clemens Unger; Dieter Marmé Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2002-07-15 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Cedric de Bazelaire; David C Alsop; Daniel George; Ivan Pedrosa; Yongyu Wang; M Dror Michaelson; Neil M Rofsky Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2008-09-01 Impact factor: 12.531