| Literature DB >> 30154687 |
Hans-Jonas Meyer1, Sandra Purz2, Osama Sabri2, Alexey Surov1.
Abstract
Multimodal imaging has been increasingly used in oncology, especially in cervical cancer. By using a simultaneous positron emission (PET) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI, PET/MRI) approach, PET and MRI can be obtained at the same time which minimizes motion artefacts and allows an exact imaging fusion, which is especially important in anatomically complex regions like the pelvis. The associations between functional parameters from MRI and 18F-FDG-PET reflecting different tumor aspects are complex with inconclusive results in cervical cancer. The present study correlates histogram analysis and 18F-FDG-PET parameters derived from simultaneous FDG-PET/MRI in cervical cancer. Overall, 18 female patients (age range: 32-79 years) with histopathologically confirmed squamous cell cervical carcinoma were retrospectively enrolled. All 18 patients underwent a whole-body simultaneous 18F-FDG-PET/MRI, including diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) using b-values 0 and 1000 s/mm2. Apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) histogram parameters included several percentiles, mean, min, max, mode, median, skewness, kurtosis, and entropy. Furthermore, mean and maximum standardized uptake values (SUVmean and SUVmax), metabolic tumor volume (MTV), and total lesion glycolysis (TLG) were estimated. No statistically significant correlations were observed between SUVmax or SUVmean and ADC histogram parameters. TLG correlated inversely with p25 (r=-0.486, P=0.041), p75 (r=-0.490, P=0.039), p90 (r=-0.513, P=0.029), ADC median (r=-0.497, P=0.036), and ADC mode (r=-0.546, P=0.019). MTV also showed significant correlations with several ADC parameters: mean (r=-0.546, P=0.019), p10 (r=-0.473, P=0.047), p25 (r=-0.569, P=0.014), p75 (r=-0.576, P=0.012), p90 (r=-0.585, P=0.011), ADC median (r=-0.577, P=0.012), and ADC mode (r=-0.597, P=0.009). ADC histogram analysis and volume-based metabolic 18F-FDG-PET parameters are related to each other in cervical cancer.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30154687 PMCID: PMC6098855 DOI: 10.1155/2018/5063285
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Contrast Media Mol Imaging ISSN: 1555-4309 Impact factor: 3.161
Overview about published literature regarding correlation analysis between DWI and FDG-PET.
| Author | Number of patients | Analyzed parameters | Correlation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ho et al. [ | 33 | ADCmin, mean, SUVmax, mean | No statistically significant correlations |
|
| |||
| Sun et al. [ | 35 | ADCmin, mean, SUVmax, mean | No significant correlation between SUVmax and ADCmin ( |
|
| |||
| Wang et al. [ | 30 | ADCmin, mean, SUVmax, mean | No statistically significant correlations between ADC and SUV fractions |
|
| |||
| Brandmaier et al. [ | 31 (14 primary, 17 recurrence) | ADCmin, mean, SUVmax, mean | SUVmax versus ADCmin ( |
|
| |||
| Pinker et al. [ | 11 | ADCmean, SUVmax | No significant correlations |
|
| |||
| Surov et al. [ | 21 | ADCmin, mean, max, SUVmax, mean | No significant correlations between ADC and SUV fractions |
|
| |||
| Lai et al. [ | 29 | MTV, functional diffusion volume | Significant differences regarding MTV and functional diffusion volume derived from ADC maps |
Clinical data of the investigated patients.
| Case | Age | Tumor grade | T stage | N stage | M stage |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 63 | G2 | 2b | 1 | 0 |
| 2 | 76 | G3 | 4 | 0 | 0 |
| 3 | 65 | G2 | 2b | 0 | 0 |
| 4 | 63 | G3 | 4 | 1 | 1 |
| 5 | 34 | G3 | 2b | 1 | 0 |
| 6 | 57 | G2 | 4 | 1 | 1 |
| 7 | 53 | G3 | 2b | 0 | 0 |
| 8 | 32 | G2 | 4 | 1 | 0 |
| 9 | 32 | G2 | 2b | 0 | 0 |
| 10 | 54 | G2 | 3a | 2 | 0 |
| 11 | 79 | G3 | 4 | 1 | 0 |
| 12 | 52 | G1 | 4 | 0 | 0 |
| 13 | 37 | G3 | 2b | 1 | 1 |
| 14 | 72 | G3 | 4 | 0 | 0 |
| 15 | 46 | G2 | 2b | 1 | 1 |
| 16 | 71 | G2 | 4 | 1 | 1 |
| 17 | 50 | G2 | 2b | 1 | 1 |
| 18 | 61 | G2 | 4 | 1 | 0 |
Figure 1Imaging and histopathological findings in a case of cervical cancer. (a) 18F-FDG-PET of a 57-year-old woman with locally advanced cervical cancer (arrow). (b) Fused 18F-FDG-PET/MRI image demonstration of the metabolic active uterine cervical cancer (arrow). Calculated 18F-FDG-PET parameters are as follows: SUVmax = 8.77, SUVmean = 4.66, SUV median = 4.32, TLG = 92.91, and MTV = 19.96. (c) ADC map of the tumor with a ROI. (e) ADC histogram. The histogram analysis parameters (×10−3 mm2·s−1) are as follows: ADCmin = 0.36, ADCmean = 0.87, ADCmax = 1.36, p10 = 0.7, p25 = 0.78, p75 = 0.96, p90 = 1.03, median = 0.88, and mode = 0.93. Histogram-based characteristics are as follows: kurtosis = 2.96, skewness = −028, and entropy = 4.72. (d) Histopathological examination (hematoxylin and eosin-stained specimen) after tumor biopsy reveals a G2 cervical cancer.
Interreader variability with intraclass coefficients of the investigated ADC parameters.
| Parameter | ICC |
|---|---|
| ADCmean | 0.870 |
| ADCmin | 0.947 |
| ADCmax | 0.920 |
| ADC P10 | 0.727 |
| ADC P25 | 0.844 |
| ADC P75 | 0.804 |
| ADC P90 | 0.803 |
| ADC median | 0.959 |
| ADC mode | 0.917 |
| Kurtosis | 0.859 |
| Skewness | 0.792 |
| Entropy | 0.705 |
ICC, intraclass coefficient.
Correlation between ADC histogram parameters and 18F-FDG-PET parameters in cervical cancer. Spearman's rho correlation coefficient was used.
| SUVmax | SUVmean | SUVmedian | TLG | MTV | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean ADC |
| −0.134 | −0.215 | −0.336 | −0.461 |
|
|
| 0.595 | 0.392 | 0.173 | 0.054 |
| |
| Min ADC |
| −0.218 | −0.213 | −0.282 | −0.219 | −0.257 |
|
| 0.385 | 0.396 | 0.257 | 0.382 | 0.303 | |
| Max ADC |
| −0.044 | −0.166 | −0.176 | 0.166 | 0.162 |
|
| 0.861 | 0.510 | 0.484 | 0.510 | 0.521 | |
| P10 ADC |
| −0.183 | −0.223 | −0.332 | −0.413 |
|
|
| 0.468 | 0.373 | 0.179 | 0.088 |
| |
| P25 ADC |
| −0.150 | −0.214 | −0.329 |
|
|
|
| 0.553 | 0.395 | 0.182 |
|
| |
| P75 ADC |
| −0.142 | −0.244 | −0.354 |
|
|
|
| 0.575 | 0.329 | 0.150 |
|
| |
| P90 ADC |
| −0.215 | −0.275 | −0.361 |
|
|
|
| 0.392 | 0.270 | 0.142 |
|
| |
| Median ADC |
| −0.153 | −0.244 | −0.368 |
|
|
|
| 0.544 | 0.329 | 0.133 |
|
| |
| Mode ADC |
| −0.225 | −0.157 | −0.261 |
|
|
|
| 0.370 | 0.533 | 0.296 |
|
| |
| Kurtosis |
| −0.150 | −0.148 | −0.117 | 0.288 | 0.284 |
|
| 0.553 | 0.559 | 0.645 | 0.247 | 0.254 | |
| Skewness |
| −0.095 | −0.054 | −0.004 | 0.149 | 0.142 |
|
| 0.708 | 0.832 | 0.987 | 0.556 | 0.573 | |
| Entropy |
| 0.071 | −0.036 | −0.049 | 0.084 | 0.172 |
|
| 0.779 | 0.887 | 0.848 | 0.742 | 0.494 | |
Significant correlations are highlighted in bold.