Salvatore Amodeo1, Alan S Rosman2, Vincenzo Desiato1,3, Nicole M Hindman4, Elliot Newman1,5, Russell Berman1, H Leon Pachter1, Marcovalerio Melis1,5. 1. 1 Department of Surgery, NYU School of Medicine, New York, NY. 2. 2 Section of Gastroenterology and Medicine Program, Mount Sinai School of Medicine and James J. Peters VA Medical Center, New York, NY. 3. 3 Department of Clinical Medicine and Surgery, University "Federico II" of Naples, Naples, Italy. 4. 4 Department of Radiology, NYU School of Medicine, NYU Langone Medical Center, New York, NY. 5. 5 Department of Surgery, New York Harbor Healthcare System, 423 E 23rd St, Rm 4153 N, New York, NY 10010.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to assess the use of apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) during DWI for predicting complete pathologic response of rectal cancer after neoadjuvant therapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic review of available literature was conducted to retrieve studies focused on the identification of complete pathologic response of locally advanced rectal cancer after neoadjuvant chemoradiation, through the assessment of ADC evaluated before, after, or both before and after treatment, as well as in terms of the difference between pretreatment and posttreatment ADC. Pooled mean pretreatment ADC, posttreatment ADC, and Δ-ADC (calculated as posttreatment ADC minus pretreatment ADC divided by pretreatment ADC and multiplied by 100) in complete responders versus incomplete responders were calculated. For each parameter, we also pooled sensitivity and specificity and calculated the area under the summary ROC curve. RESULTS: We found 10 prospective and eight retrospective studies. Overall, pathologic complete response was observed in 22.2% of patients. Pooled mean pretreatment ADC in complete responders was 0.84 × 10-3 mm2/s versus 0.89 × 10-3 mm2/s in incomplete responders (p = 0.33). Posttreatment ADC values were 1.51 × 10-3 mm2/s and 1.29 × 10-3 mm2/s, in complete and incomplete responders, respectively (p = 0.00001). The Δ-ADC percentages were also significantly higher in complete responders than in incomplete responders (59.7% vs 29.7%, respectively, p = 0.016). Pooled sensitivity, specificity, and AUC were 0.743, 0.755, and 0.841 for pretreatment ADC; 0.800, 0.737, and 0.782 for posttreatment ADC; and 0.832, 0.806, and 0.895 for Δ-ADC. CONCLUSION: Use of ADC during DWI is a promising technique for assessment of results of neoadjuvant treatment of rectal cancer.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to assess the use of apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) during DWI for predicting complete pathologic response of rectal cancer after neoadjuvant therapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic review of available literature was conducted to retrieve studies focused on the identification of complete pathologic response of locally advanced rectal cancer after neoadjuvant chemoradiation, through the assessment of ADC evaluated before, after, or both before and after treatment, as well as in terms of the difference between pretreatment and posttreatment ADC. Pooled mean pretreatment ADC, posttreatment ADC, and Δ-ADC (calculated as posttreatment ADC minus pretreatment ADC divided by pretreatment ADC and multiplied by 100) in complete responders versus incomplete responders were calculated. For each parameter, we also pooled sensitivity and specificity and calculated the area under the summary ROC curve. RESULTS: We found 10 prospective and eight retrospective studies. Overall, pathologic complete response was observed in 22.2% of patients. Pooled mean pretreatment ADC in complete responders was 0.84 × 10-3 mm2/s versus 0.89 × 10-3 mm2/s in incomplete responders (p = 0.33). Posttreatment ADC values were 1.51 × 10-3 mm2/s and 1.29 × 10-3 mm2/s, in complete and incomplete responders, respectively (p = 0.00001). The Δ-ADC percentages were also significantly higher in complete responders than in incomplete responders (59.7% vs 29.7%, respectively, p = 0.016). Pooled sensitivity, specificity, and AUC were 0.743, 0.755, and 0.841 for pretreatment ADC; 0.800, 0.737, and 0.782 for posttreatment ADC; and 0.832, 0.806, and 0.895 for Δ-ADC. CONCLUSION: Use of ADC during DWI is a promising technique for assessment of results of neoadjuvant treatment of rectal cancer.
Authors: David D B Bates; Jennifer S Golia Pernicka; James L Fuqua; Viktoriya Paroder; Iva Petkovska; Junting Zheng; Marinela Capanu; Juliana Schilsky; Marc J Gollub Journal: Abdom Radiol (NY) Date: 2020-02
Authors: Mayra Evelia Jiménez de Los Santos; Juan Armando Reyes-Pérez; Rosa Martha Sandoval-Nava; José Luis Villalobos-Juárez; Yolanda Villaseñor-Navarro; Itzel Vela-Sarmiento; Isabel Sollozo-Dupont Journal: Acta Radiol Open Date: 2020-09-15
Authors: Charlems Alvarez-Jimenez; Jacob T Antunes; Nitya Talasila; Kaustav Bera; Justin T Brady; Jayakrishna Gollamudi; Eric Marderstein; Matthew F Kalady; Andrei Purysko; Joseph E Willis; Sharon Stein; Kenneth Friedman; Rajmohan Paspulati; Conor P Delaney; Eduardo Romero; Anant Madabhushi; Satish E Viswanath Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2020-07-24 Impact factor: 6.639
Authors: Anne Louise Højmark Bisgaard; Carsten Brink; Maja Lynge Fransen; Tine Schytte; Claus P Behrens; Ivan Vogelius; Henrik Dahl Nissen; Faisal Mahmood Journal: Phys Imaging Radiat Oncol Date: 2022-03-07
Authors: Fernando López-Campos; Margarita Martín-Martín; Roberto Fornell-Pérez; Juan Carlos García-Pérez; Javier Die-Trill; Raquel Fuentes-Mateos; Sergio López-Durán; José Domínguez-Rullán; Reyes Ferreiro; Alejandro Riquelme-Oliveira; Asunción Hervás-Morón; Felipe Couñago Journal: World J Gastroenterol Date: 2020-08-07 Impact factor: 5.742