| Literature DB >> 31897081 |
Xue Wang1, Wenxiao Lin1, Yiting Mao2, Wenwen Peng1, Jiao Song1, Yi Lu1, Yu Zhao3, Tong San Koh4,5, Zujun Hou6, Zhihan Yan1.
Abstract
A variety of tracer kinetic methods have been employed to assess tumor angiogenesis. The Standard two-Compartment model (SC) used in cervix carcinoma was less frequent, and Adiabatic Approximation to the Tissue Homogeneity (AATH) and Distributed Parameter (DP) model are lacking. This study compares two-compartment exchange models (2CXM) (AATH, SC, and DP) for determining dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (DCE-MRI) parameters in cervical cancer, with the aim of investigating the potential of various parameters derived from 2CXM for tumor diagnosis and exploring the possible relationship between these parameters in patients with cervix cancer. Parameters (tissue blood flow, F p; tissue blood volume, V p; interstitial volume, V e; and vascular permeability, PS) for regions of interest (ROI) of cervix lesions and normal cervix tissue were estimated by AATH, SC, and DP models in 36 patients with cervix cancer and 17 healthy subjects. All parameters showed significant differences between lesions and normal tissue with a P value less than 0.05, except for PS from the AATH model, F p from the SC model, and V p from the DP model. Parameter V e from the AATH model had the largest AUC (r = 0.85). Parameters F p and V p from SC and DP models and V e and PS from AATH and DP models were highly correlated, respectively, (r > 0.8) in cervix lesions. Cervix cancer was found to have a very unusual microcirculation pattern, with over-growth of cancer cells but without evident development of angiogenesis. V e has the best performance in identifying cervix cancer. Most physiological parameters derived from AATH, SC, and DP models are linearly correlated in cervix cancer.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31897081 PMCID: PMC6925719 DOI: 10.1155/2019/3168416
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Contrast Media Mol Imaging ISSN: 1555-4309 Impact factor: 3.161
Patient characteristics.
| Parameters | No.of patients |
|---|---|
| Age; mean (range) years | 42 (42–75) |
| Histological subtype | |
| Adenocarcinoma (AC) | 2 |
| Squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) | 34 |
| Tumor grade | |
| Well | 6 |
| Moderate | 30 |
| FIGOa stage | |
| Ib | 17 |
| IIa | 14 |
| IIb | 5 |
Abbreviation: FIGO International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics. aAccording to FIGO 2009 staging criteria.
Figure 1Example of a patient with stage IIb cervix cancer. (a) ROIs for cervix carcinoma (blue) and normal cervix tissue (red) are shown for the central four slices of the DCE-MRI dataset, and the location within the iliac artery where the AIF was sampled was marked with a red dot. (b) Sampled AIF used in model fitting. (c) Parameter maps generated using the three models (AATH, SC, and DP) for tumor and the normal tissue ROIs. (d) Examples of curve fittings for a tumor voxel. In the legend, the four numbers within square brackets beside each model are their respective parameter values: (F p (mL/min/100 mL), V p (mL/100 mL), PS (mL/min/100 mL), V e (mL/100 mL)).
Interobserver consistency for cervix lesion and the normal cervix tissue.
| AATH | SC | DP | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
| PS |
|
|
| PS |
|
|
| PS | |
| Lesion | ||||||||||||
| ICC | 0.922 | 0.975 | 0.959 | 0.939 | 0.935 | 0.980 | 0.968 | 0.857 | 0.965 | 0.989 | 0.958 | 0.958 |
| 95% CI | 0.886–0.947 | 0.963–0.983 | 0.940–0.972 | 0.911–0.958 | 0.905–0.956 | 0.971–0.987 | 0.953–0.978 | 0.790–0.903 | 0.949–0.976 | 0.984–0.993 | 0.938–0.971 | 0.938–0.971 |
| Normal | ||||||||||||
| ICC | 0.934 | 0.661 | 0.908 | 0.948 | 0.978 | 0.945 | 0.910 | 0.887 | 0.906 | 0.812 | 0.943 | 0.892 |
| 95% CI | 0.902–0.955 | 0.499–0.770 | 0.864–0.938 | 0.924–0.965 | 0.967–0.985 | 0.919–0.963 | 0.867–0.939 | 0.833–0.923 | 0.861–0.936 | 0.702–0.882 | 0.916–0.961 | 0.841–0.927 |
ICC, intraclass correlation coefficient. CI, confidence interval of difference.
Comparison of model parameters between cervix carcinoma and normal cervix tissue.
|
|
|
| PS (mL/min/100 mL) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| AATH-normal cervix | 44.57 ± 23.23 | 1.27 ± 1.25 | 32.15 ± 14.32 | 10.40 ± 6.43 |
| AATH- cervix cancer | 34.13 ± 15.15 | 2.55 ± 2.30 | 17.03 ± 10.80 | 8.88 ± 4.28 |
|
| < | < | < | >0.05a |
| AUC | 0.67 | 0.75 | 0.85 | 0.56 |
|
| ||||
| SC-normal cervix | 19.51 ± 15.96 | 6.00 ± 7.65 | 29.95 ± 17.33 | 11.14 ± 7.18 |
| SC-cervix cancer | 18.48 ± 7.31 | 6.80 ± 4.24 | 19.21 ± 20.05 | 6.21 ± 4.40 |
|
| >0.05b | < | < | < |
| AUC | 0.50 | 0.64 | 0.75 | 0.75 |
|
| ||||
| DP-normal cervix | 16.06 ± 21.22 | 4.90 ± 3.24 | 31.88 ± 18.41 | 9.67 ± 5.62 |
| DP-cervix cancer | 14.83 ± 5.23 | 4.38 ± 3.06 | 16.05 ± 13.34 | 8.13 ± 3.96 |
|
| < | >0.05b | < | < |
| AUC | 0.60 | 0.54 | 0.83 | 0.58 |
AUC, area under the ROC curve. aComparison was performed by the Mann–Whitney U test. bComparison was performed by the independent t test.
Results of the Pearson correlation between parameters of the three models (AATH, SC, and DP) in cervix cancer carcinoma and normal cervix tissue. r > 0.5 and P < 0.05 are indicated by.
|
|
|
| PS (mL/min/100 mL) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lesion | ||||
| AATH-CC | 0.121 ( | 0.710 ( | 0.572 ( | 0.667 ( |
| AATH-DP | 0.095 ( | 0.732 ( | 0.899 ( | 0.921 ( |
| CC-DP | 0.813 ( | 0.850 ( | 0.565 ( | 0.749 ( |
|
| ||||
| Normal | ||||
| AATH-CC | 0.829 ( | 0.261 ( | 0.824 ( | 0.554 ( |
| AATH-DP | 0.815 ( | 0.247 ( | 0.912 ( | 0.890 ( |
| CC-DP | 0.981 ( | 0.696 ( | 0.886 ( | 0.385 ( |
Figure 2(a) Bland–Altman plots for F p, V p, V e, and PS from AATH, SC, and DP models in normal cervix tissue (N). (b) Bland–Altman plots for F p, V p, V e, and PS from AATH, SC, and DP models in the cervix lesion (L). The unit of these parameters is listed as follows: F p (mL/min/100 mL), V p (mL/100 mL), V e (mL/100 mL), and PS (mL/min/100 mL).
Figure 3The signal intensity-time curve of cervix cancer ROI and the normal tissue for the same patient in Figure 1.