Kai Chen1,2, Hua-Long She1,2, Tao Wu2, Fang Hu3, Tao Li4, Liang-Ping Luo5. 1. Medical Imaging Center, The First Affiliated Hospital of Jinan University, 613 Huangpu Street, Guangzhou, 510630, China. 2. Department of Radiology, Affiliated Hospital of Xiangnan University (Clinical College), 25 Renmin West Road, Chenzhou, 423000, China. 3. College of Medical Imaging and Medical Examination, Xiangnan University, 25 Renmin West Road, Chenzhou, 423000, China. 4. College of Medical Imaging and Medical Examination, Xiangnan University, 25 Renmin West Road, Chenzhou, 423000, China. xnxylitiao@163.com. 5. Medical Imaging Center, The First Affiliated Hospital of Jinan University, 613 Huangpu Street, Guangzhou, 510630, China. tluolp@jnu.edu.cn.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate and compare the diagnostic performance of percentage changes in apparent diffusion coefficient (∆ADC%) and slow diffusion coefficient (∆D%) for assessing pathological complete response (pCR) to neoadjuvant therapy in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC). METHODS: A systematic search in PubMed, EMBASE, the Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library was performed to retrieve related original studies. For each parameter (∆ADC% and ∆D%), we pooled the sensitivity, specificity and calculated the area under summary receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) values. Meta-regression and subgroup analyses were performed to explore heterogeneity among the studies on ∆ADC%. RESULTS: 15 original studies (804 patients with 805 lesions, 15 studies on ∆ADC%, 4 of the studies both on ∆ADC% and ∆D%) were included. pCR was observed in 213 lesions (26.46%). For the assessment of pCR, the pooled sensitivity, specificity and AUROC of ∆ADC% were 0.83 (95% confidence intervals [CI] 0.76, 0.89), 0.74 (95% CI 0.66, 0.81), 0.87 (95% CI 0.83, 0.89), and ∆D% were 0.70 (95% CI 0.52, 0.84), 0.81 (95% CI 0.65, 0.90), 0.81 (95% CI 0.77, 0.84), respectively. In the four studies on the both metrics, ∆ADC% yielded an equivalent diagnostic performance (AUROC 0.80 [95% CI 0.76, 0.83]) to ∆D%, but lower than in the studies (n = 11) only on ∆ADC% (AUROC 0.88 [95% CI 0.85, 0.91]). Meta-regression and subgroup analyses showed no significant factors affecting heterogeneity. CONCLUSIONS: Our meta-analysis confirms that ∆ADC% could reliably evaluate pCR in patients with LARC after neoadjuvant therapy. ∆D% may not be superior to ∆ADC%, which deserves further investigation.
PURPOSE: To evaluate and compare the diagnostic performance of percentage changes in apparent diffusion coefficient (∆ADC%) and slow diffusion coefficient (∆D%) for assessing pathological complete response (pCR) to neoadjuvant therapy in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC). METHODS: A systematic search in PubMed, EMBASE, the Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library was performed to retrieve related original studies. For each parameter (∆ADC% and ∆D%), we pooled the sensitivity, specificity and calculated the area under summary receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) values. Meta-regression and subgroup analyses were performed to explore heterogeneity among the studies on ∆ADC%. RESULTS: 15 original studies (804 patients with 805 lesions, 15 studies on ∆ADC%, 4 of the studies both on ∆ADC% and ∆D%) were included. pCR was observed in 213 lesions (26.46%). For the assessment of pCR, the pooled sensitivity, specificity and AUROC of ∆ADC% were 0.83 (95% confidence intervals [CI] 0.76, 0.89), 0.74 (95% CI 0.66, 0.81), 0.87 (95% CI 0.83, 0.89), and ∆D% were 0.70 (95% CI 0.52, 0.84), 0.81 (95% CI 0.65, 0.90), 0.81 (95% CI 0.77, 0.84), respectively. In the four studies on the both metrics, ∆ADC% yielded an equivalent diagnostic performance (AUROC 0.80 [95% CI 0.76, 0.83]) to ∆D%, but lower than in the studies (n = 11) only on ∆ADC% (AUROC 0.88 [95% CI 0.85, 0.91]). Meta-regression and subgroup analyses showed no significant factors affecting heterogeneity. CONCLUSIONS: Our meta-analysis confirms that ∆ADC% could reliably evaluate pCR in patients with LARC after neoadjuvant therapy. ∆D% may not be superior to ∆ADC%, which deserves further investigation.
Entities:
Keywords:
Diffusion weighted MRI; Neoadjuvant therapy; Rectal cancer
Authors: Monique Maas; Patty J Nelemans; Vincenzo Valentini; Prajnan Das; Claus Rödel; Li-Jen Kuo; Felipe A Calvo; Julio García-Aguilar; Rob Glynne-Jones; Karin Haustermans; Mohammed Mohiuddin; Salvatore Pucciarelli; William Small; Javier Suárez; George Theodoropoulos; Sebastiano Biondo; Regina G H Beets-Tan; Geerard L Beets Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2010-08-06 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: A M Mandard; F Dalibard; J C Mandard; J Marnay; M Henry-Amar; J F Petiot; A Roussel; J H Jacob; P Segol; G Samama Journal: Cancer Date: 1994-06-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Pietro Valerio Foti; Giuseppe Privitera; Sebastiano Piana; Stefano Palmucci; Corrado Spatola; Roberta Bevilacqua; Luigi Raffaele; Vincenzo Salamone; Rosario Caltabiano; Gaetano Magro; Giovanni Li Destri; Pietro Milone; Giovanni Carlo Ettorre Journal: Eur J Radiol Open Date: 2016-07-18