Manijeh Beigi1, Anahita Fathi Kazerooni1, Mojtaba Safari1, Marzieh Alamolhoda2, Mohsen Shojaee Moghdam3, Shiva Moghadam4, Hamidreza SalighehRad5, Ahmad Ameri6. 1. Quantitative MR Imaging and Spectroscopy Group, Research Center for Cellular and Molecular Imaging, Institute for Advanced Medical Imaging, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. 2. Department of Biostatistics, Shiraz University of Medical Science, Shiraz, Iran. 3. Payambaran Imaging Center, Tehran, Iran. 4. Department of Clinical Oncology, ShahidBeheshti University of Medical Science, Tehran, Iran. 5. Department of Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. 6. Department of Clinical Oncology, ShahidBeheshti University of Medical Science, Tehran, Iran. a_ameri@sbmu.ac.ir.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate whether the pretreatment apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) heterogeneity parameters and their alterations, after one cycle of induction chemotherapy, can be used as reliable markers of treatment response to induction chemotherapy in patients with nasopharyngeal cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ten patients were recruited and received induction chemotherapy (IC). Diffusion-weighted imaging was performed prior to, during, and after IC. The first-order ADC histogram parameters at the intra-treatment time-point were compared to the baseline time-point in the metastatic lymph nodes (LNs). Some ADC pretreatment parameters were combined with each other, employing discriminant analysis to achieve a feasible model to separate the complete response (CR) from the partial response (PR) groups. RESULTS: For ten patients, significant rise in Mean and Txt1Mean (p = 0.048 and 0.015, respectively) was observed in the metastatic nodes following one cycle of IC. Txt5Energy significantly decreased (p = 0.002). Discriminant analysis on pretreatment parameters illustrated that Txt5Energypre was the best parameter to use to correctly classify CR and PR patients. This was followed by Txt9Percentile75pre, Txt1Meanpre, and Txt2Standard Deviationpre. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that heterogeneity metrics extracted from ADC-maps in metastatic lymph nodes, before and after IC, can be used as supplementary IC response indicators.
PURPOSE: To evaluate whether the pretreatment apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) heterogeneity parameters and their alterations, after one cycle of induction chemotherapy, can be used as reliable markers of treatment response to induction chemotherapy in patients with nasopharyngeal cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ten patients were recruited and received induction chemotherapy (IC). Diffusion-weighted imaging was performed prior to, during, and after IC. The first-order ADC histogram parameters at the intra-treatment time-point were compared to the baseline time-point in the metastatic lymph nodes (LNs). Some ADC pretreatment parameters were combined with each other, employing discriminant analysis to achieve a feasible model to separate the complete response (CR) from the partial response (PR) groups. RESULTS: For ten patients, significant rise in Mean and Txt1Mean (p = 0.048 and 0.015, respectively) was observed in the metastatic nodes following one cycle of IC. Txt5Energy significantly decreased (p = 0.002). Discriminant analysis on pretreatment parameters illustrated that Txt5Energypre was the best parameter to use to correctly classify CR and PR patients. This was followed by Txt9Percentile75pre, Txt1Meanpre, and Txt2Standard Deviationpre. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that heterogeneity metrics extracted from ADC-maps in metastatic lymph nodes, before and after IC, can be used as supplementary IC response indicators.
Entities:
Keywords:
Diffusion-weighted MRI; Induction chemotherapy; Lymph node; Nasopharyngeal cancer
Authors: Kuei C Lee; Bradford A Moffat; Anne F Schott; Rachel Layman; Steven Ellingworth; Rebecca Juliar; Amjad P Khan; Mark Helvie; Charles R Meyer; Thomas L Chenevert; Alnawaz Rehemtulla; Brian D Ross Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2007-01-15 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Vincent Vandecaveye; Piet Dirix; Frederik De Keyzer; Katya Op de Beeck; Vincent Vander Poorten; Esther Hauben; Maarten Lambrecht; Sandra Nuyts; Robert Hermans Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2011-04-20 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Sungheon Kim; Laurie Loevner; Harry Quon; Eric Sherman; Gregory Weinstein; Alex Kilger; Harish Poptani Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2009-02-01 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: E A Eisenhauer; P Therasse; J Bogaerts; L H Schwartz; D Sargent; R Ford; J Dancey; S Arbuck; S Gwyther; M Mooney; L Rubinstein; L Shankar; L Dodd; R Kaplan; D Lacombe; J Verweij Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2009-01 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Dae Young Yoon; Hee Sung Hwang; Suk Ki Chang; Young-Soo Rho; Hwoe Young Ahn; Jin Hwan Kim; In Jae Lee Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2008-10-09 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Ceri Powell; Maria Schmidt; Marco Borri; Dow-Mu Koh; Mike Partridge; Angela Riddell; Gary Cook; Shreerang A Bhide; Christopher M Nutting; Kevin J Harrington; Katie L Newbold Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2012-10-22 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Stefania Acciardo; Lionel Mignion; Nicolas Joudiou; Caroline Bouzin; Jean-François Baurain; Bernard Gallez; Bénédicte F Jordan Journal: Oncotarget Date: 2018-03-30