OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the multiparametric MRI in predicting chemotherapy response in pathologically proven cases of osteosarcoma and Ewing's sarcoma. Correlation between the tumor size changes and internal breakdown using RECIST 1.1, modified RECIST, quantitative apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) and tumor volume as well as dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI (DCE-MRI). METHODS: The study included 104 patients pathologically proved osteosarcoma (53) and Ewing`s sarcoma (51) underwent MRI examinations; before and after chemotherapy. All patients were assessed using the RECIST 1.1 criteria, m-RECIST, quantitative ADC, and tumor volume evaluation. 21 patients underwent DCE-MRI curve type with quantitative parameters. Correlation between the different evaluations was carried out. Results were correlated with the post-operative pathology in 42 patients who underwent surgery and for statistical evaluation, Those patients were classified into responders (≥90% necrosis) and non-responders (<90% necrosis). RESULTS: The initial mean ADC of 104 patients of osteosarcoma and Ewing's sarcoma (0.90 ± 0.29) and (0.71 ± 0.16) respectively, differed significantly from that after treatment (1.62 ± 0.46) and (1.6 ± 0.39) respectively with (p<0.001).ADC variations (ADC%) in the non-progressive group were higher than those of the progressive group (128.3 ± 63.49 vs 36.34 ± 78.7) % with (p<0.001).ADC values and ADC variations were inversely correlated with morphologic changes, regardless of the effectiveness of chemotherapy expressed as changes in tumor size based on (RECIST 1.1, RECIST, and 3D volume). Linear regression analysis revealed a Pearson correlation coefficient of r=-0.427, -0.498 and -0.408, respectively with (p<0.001).An increase in the ADC value was not always associated with a reduction in tumor volume. The disease control rate (defined as the percentage of CR+PR+SD patients) was 89.4% and 93.9% according to RECIST 1.1 and m-RECIST respectively.42 out of the 104 patients had postsurgical histological evaluation as regards the chemotherapeutic response divided into two groups. ADC values showed a statistically significant difference between Group A and Group B being more evident with minimum ADC% (p<0.001). CONCLUSION: Quantitative diffusion-weighted imaging with ADC mapping and ADC % after chemotherapy allows a detailed analysis of the treatment response in osteosarcoma and Ewing's sarcoma. The therapeutic response can be underestimated using RECIST 1.1, so the modified RECIST should be also considered. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: Quantitative ADC especially ADC% provided an accurate non-invasive tool in the assessment of post-therapeutic cases of osteosarcoma and Ewing's sarcoma.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the multiparametric MRI in predicting chemotherapy response in pathologically proven cases of osteosarcoma and Ewing's sarcoma. Correlation between the tumor size changes and internal breakdown using RECIST 1.1, modified RECIST, quantitative apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) and tumor volume as well as dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI (DCE-MRI). METHODS: The study included 104 patients pathologically proved osteosarcoma (53) and Ewing`s sarcoma (51) underwent MRI examinations; before and after chemotherapy. All patients were assessed using the RECIST 1.1 criteria, m-RECIST, quantitative ADC, and tumor volume evaluation. 21 patients underwent DCE-MRI curve type with quantitative parameters. Correlation between the different evaluations was carried out. Results were correlated with the post-operative pathology in 42 patients who underwent surgery and for statistical evaluation, Those patients were classified into responders (≥90% necrosis) and non-responders (<90% necrosis). RESULTS: The initial mean ADC of 104 patients of osteosarcoma and Ewing's sarcoma (0.90 ± 0.29) and (0.71 ± 0.16) respectively, differed significantly from that after treatment (1.62 ± 0.46) and (1.6 ± 0.39) respectively with (p<0.001).ADC variations (ADC%) in the non-progressive group were higher than those of the progressive group (128.3 ± 63.49 vs 36.34 ± 78.7) % with (p<0.001).ADC values and ADC variations were inversely correlated with morphologic changes, regardless of the effectiveness of chemotherapy expressed as changes in tumor size based on (RECIST 1.1, RECIST, and 3D volume). Linear regression analysis revealed a Pearson correlation coefficient of r=-0.427, -0.498 and -0.408, respectively with (p<0.001).An increase in the ADC value was not always associated with a reduction in tumor volume. The disease control rate (defined as the percentage of CR+PR+SD patients) was 89.4% and 93.9% according to RECIST 1.1 and m-RECIST respectively.42 out of the 104 patients had postsurgical histological evaluation as regards the chemotherapeutic response divided into two groups. ADC values showed a statistically significant difference between Group A and Group B being more evident with minimum ADC% (p<0.001). CONCLUSION: Quantitative diffusion-weighted imaging with ADC mapping and ADC % after chemotherapy allows a detailed analysis of the treatment response in osteosarcoma and Ewing's sarcoma. The therapeutic response can be underestimated using RECIST 1.1, so the modified RECIST should be also considered. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: Quantitative ADC especially ADC% provided an accurate non-invasive tool in the assessment of post-therapeutic cases of osteosarcoma and Ewing's sarcoma.
Authors: C Baunin; G Schmidt; K Baumstarck; C Bouvier; J C Gentet; A Aschero; A Ruocco; B Bourlière; G Gorincour; C Desvignes; N Colavolpe; G Bollini; P Auqier; P Petit Journal: Skeletal Radiol Date: 2012-02-09 Impact factor: 2.199
Authors: Theodoros Soldatos; Shivani Ahlawat; Elizabeth Montgomery; Majid Chalian; Michael A Jacobs; Laura M Fayad Journal: Radiology Date: 2015-09-21 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Joan C Vilanova; Sandra Baleato-Gonzalez; Maria José Romero; Javier Carrascoso-Arranz; Antonio Luna Journal: Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am Date: 2015-09-26 Impact factor: 2.266
Authors: C Messiou; S Bonvalot; A Gronchi; D Vanel; M Meyer; P Robinson; C Morosi; J L Bloem; P H Terrier; A Lazar; C Le Péchoux; E Wardelman; J M Winfield; B Boulet; J Bovée; R L Haas Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2016-01-20 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Andrés Redondo; Silvia Bagué; Daniel Bernabeu; Eduardo Ortiz-Cruz; Claudia Valverde; Rosa Alvarez; Javier Martinez-Trufero; Jose A Lopez-Martin; Raquel Correa; Josefina Cruz; Antonio Lopez-Pousa; Aurelio Santos; Xavier García Del Muro; Javier Martin-Broto Journal: Cancer Chemother Pharmacol Date: 2017-10-16 Impact factor: 3.333
Authors: Michael A Boss; Bradley S Snyder; Eunhee Kim; Dena Flamini; Sarah Englander; Karthik M Sundaram; Naveen Gumpeni; Suzanne L Palmer; Haesun Choi; Adam T Froemming; Thorsten Persigehl; Matthew S Davenport; Dariya Malyarenko; Thomas L Chenevert; Mark A Rosen Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2022-02-10 Impact factor: 5.119