| Literature DB >> 30854439 |
David Aramburu Núñez1, Yonggang Lu2, Ramesh Paudyal1, Vaios Hatzoglou3, Andre L Moreira4, Jung Hun Oh1, Hilda E Stambuk3, Yousef Mazaheri1, Mithat Gonen5, Ronald A Ghossein6, Ashok R Shaha7, R Michael Tuttle8, Amita Shukla-Dave1,3.
Abstract
We assessed a priori aggressive features using quantitative diffusion-weighted imaging metrics to preclude an active surveillance management approach in patients with papillary thyroid cancer (PTC) with tumor size 1-2 cm. This prospective study enrolled 24 patients with PTC who underwent pretreatment multi-b-value diffusion-weighted imaging on a GE 3 T magnetic resonance imaging scanner. The apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) metric was calculated from monoexponential model, and the perfusion fraction (f), diffusion coefficient (D), pseudo-diffusion coefficient (D*), and diffusion kurtosis coefficient (K) metrics were estimated using the non-Gaussian intravoxel incoherent motion model. Neck ultrasonography examination data were used to calculate tumor size. The receiver operating characteristic curve assessed the discriminative specificity, sensitivity, and accuracy between PTCs with and without features of tumor aggressiveness. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed on metrics using a leave-1-out cross-validation method. Tumor aggressiveness was defined by surgical histopathology. Tumors with aggressive features had significantly lower ADC and D values than tumors without tumor-aggressive features (P < .05). The absolute relative change was 46% in K metric value between the 2 tumor types. In total, 14 patients were in the critical size range (1-2 cm) measured by ultrasonography, and the ADC and D were significantly different and able to differentiate between the 2 tumor types (P < .05). ADC and D can distinguish tumors with aggressive histological features to preclude an active surveillance management approach in patients with PTC with tumors measuring 1-2 cm.Entities:
Keywords: Gaussian and non-Gaussian; diffusion-weighted imaging; multi b-value; papillary thyroid carcinoma; tumor aggressiveness
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 30854439 PMCID: PMC6403039 DOI: 10.18383/j.tom.2018.00054
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Tomography ISSN: 2379-1381
Patient Characteristics
| Characteristic | Values |
|---|---|
| Age at diagnosis (years) | 41 ± 7 (range, 27–78) |
| Sex | |
| Female | 16 (67%) |
| Male | 8 (33%) |
| Fine-needle aspiration cytology | |
| Papillary thyroid cancer | 16 (67%) |
| Suspicious for papillary thyroid cancer | 8 (33%) |
| Preoperative US | |
| Subcapsular location of tumor | 19 (79%) |
| Extrathyroidal Extension | 2 (8%) |
| Evidence of Lymph node metastases | 13 (54%) |
| Size of papillary carcinoma (mm) | 16 ± 6 (range, 6–26) |
| Histology | |
| Classic papillary thyroid cancer (cPTC) | 13 (54%) |
| Follicular variant papillary thyroid cancer (fvPTC) | 3 (12%) |
| Diffuse sclerosing PTC (dsPTC) | 1 (4%) |
| Tall cell variant PTC (tPTC) | 4 (16%) |
| Multifocal (cPTC+fvPTC; cPTC+tPTC) | 1 + 2 (12%) |
| Size of papillary carcinoma (mm) | 15 ± 6 (range, 5–25) |
| Aggressive features based on pathology | |
| Tall cell | 6 (25%) |
| Extrathyroidal extension | 9 (38%) |
| Necrosis | 0 (0%) |
| Vascular and/or tumor capsular invasion | 1 (4%) |
| Regional metastases | 16 (67%) |
| Distant metastases | 0 (0%) |
| Pathology T | |
| T1a | 2 (8%) |
| T1b | 10 (42%) |
| T2 | 3 (13%) |
| T3 | 9 (38%) |
| Pathology N | |
| N0 | 8 (33%) |
| N1a | 6 (25%) |
| N1b | 10 (42%) |
| Clinical M | |
| M0 | 24 (100%) |
| M1 | 0 (0%) |
| AJCC Stage | |
| I | 17 (71%) |
| II | 2 (8%) |
| III | 3 (13%) |
| IVA | 2 (8%) |
Figure 1.Logarithmic signal intensity (Sb/S0) plotted as a function of b-value. The experimental data (black circle) obtained from a representative thyroid patient is fitted with a mono exponential model (blue line) and non-Gaussian intravoxel incoherent motion model (red line).
Figure 2.The representative patient with papillary thyroid carcinoma (PTC) with tumor aggressive features (female; 28 years; ultrasonography [US] maximum tumor diameter, 2.1 cm). Diffusion-weighted image (b = 0 s/mm2) (A). ADC map (×10−3 mm2/s) overlaid on diffusion-weighted image (b = 0 s/mm2) (B). K map overlaid on diffusion-weighted image (b = 0 s/mm2) (C). D* (×10−3 mm2/s) map overlaid on diffusion-weighted image (b = 0 s/mm2) (D). D map (×10−3 mm2/s) overlaid on diffusion-weighted image (b = 0 s/mm2) (E). f map overlaid on diffusion-weighted image (b = 0 s/mm2) (F).
Figure 3.The representative patient with PTC without tumor-aggressive features (female; 48 years; US maximum tumor diameter, 2.1 cm). Diffusion-weighted image (b = 0 s/mm2) (A). ADC map (×10−3 mm2/s) overlaid on diffusion-weighted image (b = 0 s/mm2) (B). K map overlaid on diffusion-weighted image (b = 0 s/mm2) (C). D* (×10−3 mm2/s) map overlaid on diffusion-weighted image (b = 0 s/mm2) (D). D map (×10−3 mm2/s) overlaid on diffusion-weighted image (b = 0 s/mm2) (E). f map overlaid on diffusion-weighted image (b = 0 s/mm2) (F).
Statistical Analysis (mean ± SD) for Quantitative Imaging Metrics Using Tumor Size by US
| US Tumor Size | <1 cm (n = 3) | 1–2 cm (n = 14) | >2 cm (n = 7) | |||
| Aggressive features on US | YES(n = 2) | NO(n = 1) | YES(n = 6) | NO(n = 8) | YES(n = 5) | NO(n = 2) |
| Aggressive features on pathology | YES(n = 3) | NO(n = 0) | YES(n = 10) | NO(n = 4) | YES(n = 5) | NO(n = 2) |
| ADC × 10−3 (mm2/s) | (1.2 ± 0.7) | – | (1.32 ± 0.27)[ | (1.9 ± 0.5)[ | (1.7 ± 0.4) | (2.03 ± 0.06) |
| (1.4 ± 0.7) | – | (1.27 ± 0.25)[ | (2.1 ± 0.6)[ | (1.7± 0.6) | (2.20 ± 0.08) | |
| (2.61 ± 0.62) | – | (2.84 ± 0.06) | (2.95 ± 0.06) | (2.7 ± 0.3) | (2.98 ± 0.02) | |
| (0.17 ± 0.05) | – | (0.21 ± 0.06) | (0.16 ± 0.05) | (0.18 ± 0.05) | (0.10 ± 0.02) | |
| (0.7 ± 0.6) | – | (0.70 ± 0.26) | (0.48 ± 0.29) | (0.71 ± 0.28) | (0.64 ± 0.15) | |
astatistical significance P < 0.05.
Figure 4.Box-and-whisker plots comparing the mean values for quantitative imaging metrics for all tumors in the 2 groups (tumor with and without aggressive features): ADC × 10−3 (mm2/s) (A), D × 10−3 (mm2/s) (B), f (C), D* × 10−3 (mm2/s) (D), K (E), and radiological information from US (mm) (F).
Figure 5.Scatter plot of the true diffusion coefficient (D) and the kurtosis value (K) obtained from all thyroid patients, showing a statistically significant negative correlation (ρ = −0.46; P < 0.05).
Figure 6.Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve to discriminate patients with PTC with and without aggressive features using apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC, black line), D (blue line), K (orange line) (A). ROC curve from logistic regression based on a leave-one-out cross validation method for the combination of ADC, D, and K (blue line) and ADC and D (red line) (B).