Yuewen Hao1,2, Rui An2, Yingsen Xue3, Fan Li4, Hong Wang2, Jianmin Zheng2, Linni Fan5, Jixin Liu6, Hongbin Fan7, Hong Yin8. 1. Department of Radiology, Xi'an Children's Hospital, Xi'an, Shaanxi, China. 2. Department of Radiology, Xijing Hospital, Fourth Military Medical University, Xi'an, Shaanxi, China. 3. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Northwest Women's and Children's Hospital, Xi'an, Shaanxi, China. 4. Department of Health Statistics, Fourth Military Medical University, Xi'an, Shaanxi, China. 5. Department of Pathology, Fourth Military Medical University, Xi'an, Shaanxi, China. 6. School of Life Science and Technology, Xidian University, Xi'an, Shaanxi, China. 7. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Xijing Hospital, Fourth Military Medical University, Xi'an, Shaanxi, China. fanhb@fmmu.edu.cn. 8. Department of Radiology, Xijing Hospital, Fourth Military Medical University, Xi'an, Shaanxi, China. yinhong@fmmu.edu.cn.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate parameters of diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) and dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (DCE-MRI) as early imaging indicators of tumor histologic response to pre-operative neoadjuvant chemotherapy and as probable prognostic factors for event-free survival (EFS) and overall survival in osteosarcoma (OS) in both tumoral and peritumoral areas. METHODS: Thirty-four OS patients who received three courses of neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by surgery during 2014-2018 were enrolled in this study. All patients underwent baseline and post-chemotherapy DWI and DCE-MRI. Lesion region was defined as the tumoral area and peritumoral area. Parameters of apparent diffusion coefficient, capacity transfer constant (Ktrans), elimination rate constant, extravascular extracellular space volume ratio (Ve), and initial area under the curve as well as corresponding differences between pre- and post-chemotherapy in lesion regions were evaluated. Receiver operating characteristic analysis was used to evaluate the diagnostic performance of these parameters. The associations of all parameters with tumor histologic response, EFS, and overall survival were also calculated. RESULTS: In the tumor area, moderate evidence was found that post-Ktrans was lower in responders as compared with that in poor responders (p = 0.04, false discovery rate [FDR] corrected), and ΔKtrans exhibited significant between-groups differences (p = 0.04, Bonferroni corrected; or p = 0.006, FDR corrected). Weak evidence for the between-groups difference was found in the Ve in the peritumoral area (p = 0.025 before treatment and p = 0.021 after treatment, uncorrected). Furthermore, lower post-Ktrans in the tumoral area and lower pre-Ve in the peritumoral area were significant prognostic indicators for longer EFS (p = 0.002, p = 0.026) and overall survival (p = 0.003, p = 0.023). CONCLUSIONS: In OS, DWI and DCE-MRI parameters in both tumoral and peritumoral areas can reflect the chemotherapy response and prognosticate EFS and overall survival. KEY POINTS: • Peritumoral MRI parameters can reflect the chemotherapy response in OS patients. • Peritumoral MRI parameters can predict EFS and overall survival in OS patients. • MRI parameters may be predictive factors for evaluating chemotherapy efficacy and EFS.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate parameters of diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) and dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (DCE-MRI) as early imaging indicators of tumor histologic response to pre-operative neoadjuvant chemotherapy and as probable prognostic factors for event-free survival (EFS) and overall survival in osteosarcoma (OS) in both tumoral and peritumoral areas. METHODS: Thirty-four OS patients who received three courses of neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by surgery during 2014-2018 were enrolled in this study. All patients underwent baseline and post-chemotherapy DWI and DCE-MRI. Lesion region was defined as the tumoral area and peritumoral area. Parameters of apparent diffusion coefficient, capacity transfer constant (Ktrans), elimination rate constant, extravascular extracellular space volume ratio (Ve), and initial area under the curve as well as corresponding differences between pre- and post-chemotherapy in lesion regions were evaluated. Receiver operating characteristic analysis was used to evaluate the diagnostic performance of these parameters. The associations of all parameters with tumor histologic response, EFS, and overall survival were also calculated. RESULTS: In the tumor area, moderate evidence was found that post-Ktrans was lower in responders as compared with that in poor responders (p = 0.04, false discovery rate [FDR] corrected), and ΔKtrans exhibited significant between-groups differences (p = 0.04, Bonferroni corrected; or p = 0.006, FDR corrected). Weak evidence for the between-groups difference was found in the Ve in the peritumoral area (p = 0.025 before treatment and p = 0.021 after treatment, uncorrected). Furthermore, lower post-Ktrans in the tumoral area and lower pre-Ve in the peritumoral area were significant prognostic indicators for longer EFS (p = 0.002, p = 0.026) and overall survival (p = 0.003, p = 0.023). CONCLUSIONS: In OS, DWI and DCE-MRI parameters in both tumoral and peritumoral areas can reflect the chemotherapy response and prognosticate EFS and overall survival. KEY POINTS: • Peritumoral MRI parameters can reflect the chemotherapy response in OS patients. • Peritumoral MRI parameters can predict EFS and overall survival in OS patients. • MRI parameters may be predictive factors for evaluating chemotherapy efficacy and EFS.
Entities:
Keywords:
Chemotherapy; Magnetic resonance imaging; Osteosarcoma
Authors: Catherina S P van Rijswijk; Patrik Kunz; Pancras C W Hogendoorn; Antonïe H M Taminiau; Joost Doornbos; Johan L Bloem Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2002-03 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Paul A Meyers; Cindy L Schwartz; Mark Krailo; Eugenie S Kleinerman; Donna Betcher; Mark L Bernstein; Ernest Conrad; William Ferguson; Mark Gebhardt; Allen M Goorin; Michael B Harris; John Healey; Andrew Huvos; Michael Link; Joseph Montebello; Helen Nadel; Michael Nieder; Judith Sato; Gene Siegal; Michael Weiner; Robert Wells; Lester Wold; Richard Womer; Holcombe Grier Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2005-03-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: A K Raymond; S P Chawla; C H Carrasco; A G Ayala; C V Fanning; B Grice; T Armen; C Plager; N E Papadopoulos; J Edeiken Journal: Semin Diagn Pathol Date: 1987-08 Impact factor: 3.464
Authors: Allen M Goorin; Douglas J Schwartzentruber; Meenakshi Devidas; Mark C Gebhardt; Alberto G Ayala; Michael B Harris; Lee J Helman; Holcombe E Grier; Michael P Link Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2003-04-15 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: G Rosen; B Caparros; A G Huvos; C Kosloff; A Nirenberg; A Cacavio; R C Marcove; J M Lane; B Mehta; C Urban Journal: Cancer Date: 1982-03-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: James J Morrow; Ian Bayles; Alister P W Funnell; Tyler E Miller; Alina Saiakhova; Michael M Lizardo; Cynthia F Bartels; Maaike Y Kapteijn; Stevephen Hung; Arnulfo Mendoza; Gursimran Dhillon; Daniel R Chee; Jay T Myers; Frederick Allen; Marco Gambarotti; Alberto Righi; Analisa DiFeo; Brian P Rubin; Alex Y Huang; Paul S Meltzer; Lee J Helman; Piero Picci; Henri H Versteeg; John A Stamatoyannopoulos; Chand Khanna; Peter C Scacheri Journal: Nat Med Date: 2018-01-15 Impact factor: 53.440
Authors: Konstantin Hellwig; Stephan Ellmann; Markus Eckstein; Marco Wiesmueller; Sandra Rutzner; Sabine Semrau; Benjamin Frey; Udo S Gaipl; Antoniu Oreste Gostian; Arndt Hartmann; Heinrich Iro; Rainer Fietkau; Michael Uder; Markus Hecht; Tobias Bäuerle Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2021-10-21 Impact factor: 6.244