| Literature DB >> 30001205 |
Cui Tang1, Mou-Bin Lin2, Jin-Lei Xu1, Lan-Hua Zhang1, Xiao-Ming Zuo3, Zhong-Shuai Zhang4, Meng-Xiao Liu4, Jin-Ming Xu5.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) and apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values as imaging biomarkers of rectal cancer are currently a hot research spot. The use of ADC values for preoperative judgment of pathological features in rectal cancer has been generally accepted. The image quality evaluation of conventional diffusion is severe deformation, and the measurement of ADC values can easily lead to bias. Readout-segmented echo-planar diffusion-weighted imaging (RESOLVE) provides high signal-to-noise ratio images and significantly reduces distortions caused by magnetosensitive effects. The purpose of this study was to explore the correlations between ADC values of RESOLVE and pathological prognostic factors in rectal adenocarcinoma.Entities:
Keywords: Apparent diffusion coefficient; MRI; Pathology; Prognosis; Rectal cancer
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30001205 PMCID: PMC6043992 DOI: 10.1186/s12957-018-1445-z
Source DB: PubMed Journal: World J Surg Oncol ISSN: 1477-7819 Impact factor: 2.754
Fig. 1Flow diagram of patients with rectal adenocarcinoma
Clinicopathological characteristics of the patients
| Clinicopathological characteristics | ||
|---|---|---|
| Gender | Male | 62 (69.7) |
| Female | 27 (30.3) | |
| Age (years) | ≤ 60 | 31 (34.8) |
| > 60 | 58 (65.2) | |
| Gross classification | Ulcer | 56 (62.9) |
| Eminence | 33 (37.1) | |
| Histological type | Tubular | 64 (71.9) |
| Papillary | 16 (18.0) | |
| Mucinous | 9 (10.1) | |
| Pathologic differentiation | High | 16 (18.0) |
| Moderate | 63 (70.8) | |
| Poor | 10 (11.2) | |
| T stage | T1 | 5 (5.6) |
| T2 | 36 (40.5) | |
| T3 | 46 (51.7) | |
| T4 | 2 (2.2) | |
| N stage | N0 | 56 (62.9) |
| N+ | 33 (37.1) | |
| Cancer nodule | Positive | 10 (11.2) |
| Negative | 79 (88.8) | |
| EGFR | Positive | 63 (70.8) |
| Negative | 26 (29.2) |
Fig. 2a, b A 53-year-old woman with moderately differentiated rectal adenocarcinoma that was eminence type. c, d A 68-year-old man with moderately differentiated rectal adenocarcinoma that was ulcer type. e, f A 64-year-old man with mucinous adenocarcinoma. a, c, e Axial RESOLVE images in tumour section (b = 800 s/mm2). b, d, f Measurement of the ADC values for each tumour on the ADC maps. d, b The ADC values in tumours with ulcer type (0.82 × 10−3 mm2/s) were higher than that in eminence type (0.68 × 10−3 mm2/s). f, b, d The ADC values in mucinous adenocarcinoma (1.04 × 10−3 mm2/s) were higher than that in ductal adenocarcinoma
Fig. 3(× 100) Histopathologic specimen of rectal adenocarcinoma showed negative EGFR expression (a) and positive EGFR expression (b). The RESOLVE ADC value of rectal adenocarcinoma with negative EGFR expression (a) was 0.807 × 10−3 mm2/s, higher than the ADC values (0.732 × 10−3 mm2/s) of positive EGFR expression (b)
The differences in pretreatment tumour RESOLVE ADC values stratified according to different histopathological prognostic characteristics
| Prognostic factors | Groups | Patients ( | RESOLVE ADC (± SD) (10−3 mm2/s) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gross classification | Ulcer | 56 | 0.810 ± 0.126 | 0.001 |
| Eminence | 33 | 0.715 ± 0.111 | ||
| Histological type | Tubular | 64 | 0.744 ± 0.104 | 0.000 |
| Papillary | 16 | 0.795 ± 0.120 | ||
| Mucinous | 9 | 0.958 ± 0.155 | ||
| Pathologic differentiation | High | 16 | 0.792 ± 0.161 | 0.844 |
| Moderate | 63 | 0.771 ± 0.123 | ||
| Poor | 10 | 0.769 ± 0.129 | ||
| T stage | T1 | 5 | 0.804 ± 0.134 | 0.876 |
| T2 | 36 | 0.775 ± 0.136 | ||
| T3–4 | 48 | 0.772 ± 0.124 | ||
| N stage | N0 | 56 | 0.768 ± 0.136 | 0.526 |
| N+ | 33 | 0.786 ± 0.117 | ||
| Cancer nodule | Positive | 10 | 0.746 ± 0.106 | 0.446 |
| Negative | 79 | 0.778 ± 0.132 | ||
| EGFR | Positive | 63 | 0.756 ± 0.131 | 0.028 |
| Negative | 26 | 0.822 ± 0.113 |
Fig. 4a Receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curve of mucinous adenocarcinoma in RAC. b ROC curve of EGFR negative expression in RAC