Prediction of Poor Responders to Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy in Patients with Osteosarcoma: Additive Value of Diffusion-Weighted MRI including Volumetric Analysis to Standard MRI at 3T.

Item request has been placed! ×
Item request cannot be made. ×
loading   Processing Request
Read Online Read More Add to Saved list
  • Additional Information
    • Source:
      Publisher: Public Library of Science Country of Publication: United States NLM ID: 101285081 Publication Model: eCollection Cited Medium: Internet ISSN: 1932-6203 (Electronic) Linking ISSN: 19326203 NLM ISO Abbreviation: PLoS One Subsets: MEDLINE
    • Publication Information:
      Original Publication: San Francisco, CA : Public Library of Science
    • Subject Terms:
      Diffusion Magnetic Resonance Imaging* ; Neoadjuvant Therapy*; Bone Neoplasms/*diagnostic imaging ; Bone Neoplasms/*drug therapy ; Osteosarcoma/*diagnostic imaging ; Osteosarcoma/*drug therapy; Adolescent ; Adult ; Child ; Female ; Humans ; Male ; Middle Aged ; Prognosis ; ROC Curve ; Retrospective Studies ; Treatment Outcome ; Young Adult
    • Abstract:
      Objective: To evaluate the added value of diffusion weighted image (DWI) including volumetric analysis to standard magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for predicting poor responders to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with osteosarcoma at 3-Tesla.
      Methods: 3-Tesla Standard MRI and DWI in 17 patients were reviewed by two independent readers. Standard MRI was reviewed using a five-level-confidence score. Two-dimensional (2D) apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC)mean and 2D ADCminimum were measured from a single-section region of interest. An ADC histogram derived from whole-tumor volume was generated including 3D ADCmean, 3D ADCskewness, and 3D ADCkurtosis. The Mann-Whitney-U test, receiver operating characteristic curve with area under the curve (AUC) analysis, and multivariate logistic regression analysis were performed.
      Results: There were 13 poor responders and 4 good responders. Statistical differences were found in posttreatment and percent change of both 2D ADCmean and 2D ADCminimum, posttreatment 3D ADCmean, and posttreatment 3D ADCskewness between two groups. The best predictors of poor responders were posttreatment 2D ADCmean and posttreatment 3D ADCskewness. Sensitivity and specificity of the 1st model (standard MRI alone), 2nd model (standard MRI+posttreatment 2D ADCmean), and 3rd model (standard MRI+posttreatment 2D ADCmean+posttreatment 3D ADCskewness) were 85% and 25%, 85% and 75%, and 85% and 100% for reader 1 and 77% and 25%, 77% and 50%, and 85% and 100% for reader 2, respectively. The AUC of the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd models were 0.548, 0.798, and 0.923 for reader 1 and 0.510, 0.635, and 0.923 for reader 2, respectively.
      Conclusion: The addition of DWI including volumetric analysis to standard MRI improves the diagnostic accuracy for predicting poor responders to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with osteosarcoma at 3-Tesla.
      Competing Interests: The OncoTreat software used in this work was provided by Siemens Healthineers, Erlangen, Germany. This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.
    • References:
      J Nucl Med. 1999 Oct;40(10):1637-43. (PMID: 10520703)
      Eur Radiol. 2006 Dec;16(12):2637-43. (PMID: 16909220)
      Radiology. 2016 Aug;280(2):446-54. (PMID: 26919562)
      Curr Treat Options Oncol. 2006 Nov;7(6):444-55. (PMID: 17032557)
      Radiology. 1992 Mar;182(3):839-44. (PMID: 1535905)
      Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2012 Jan;39(1):39-49. (PMID: 21953008)
      J Nucl Med. 2013 Jul;54(7):1053-9. (PMID: 23670899)
      Eur Radiol. 2016 Mar;26(3):743-54. (PMID: 26080796)
      Mol Cancer Ther. 2003 Jun;2(6):581-7. (PMID: 12813138)
      Acta Radiol. 2017 Aug;58(8):971-976. (PMID: 27852643)
      Radiology. 1998 Jan;206(1):227-35. (PMID: 9423677)
      Skeletal Radiol. 2012 Sep;41(9):1141-9. (PMID: 22318350)
      Skeletal Radiol. 2010 Feb;39(2):141-6. (PMID: 19924412)
      Pediatr Radiol. 2006 Dec;36(12):1306-11. (PMID: 17031633)
      Radiology. 1990 Jan;174(1):237-40. (PMID: 2152983)
      Cancer Control. 2008 Jan;15(1):13-20. (PMID: 18094657)
      Clin Imaging. 2018 Jan - Feb;47:9-13. (PMID: 28806574)
      J Clin Oncol. 2005 Mar 20;23(9):2004-11. (PMID: 15774791)
      Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2013 May;40(5):728-36. (PMID: 23361860)
      Pediatr Radiol. 2011 Apr;41(4):441-50. (PMID: 20978754)
      Stat Med. 2013 Dec 20;32(29):5156-71. (PMID: 24038348)
      J Magn Reson Imaging. 2016 Feb;43(2):446-54. (PMID: 26174705)
      Eur J Cancer. 2016 Jan;53:84-95. (PMID: 26700077)
      Cancer. 1982 Mar 15;49(6):1221-30. (PMID: 6174200)
      Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1997 Apr;(337):216-25. (PMID: 9137193)
      J Nucl Med. 2009 Sep;50(9):1435-40. (PMID: 19690035)
      Eur J Cancer. 2009 Sep;45(13):2367-75. (PMID: 19349163)
      AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1990 Apr;154(4):763-9. (PMID: 2107673)
      Eur J Cancer. 2001 Jan;37(1):32-8. (PMID: 11165127)
      Arch Pathol Lab Med. 1977 Jan;101(1):14-8. (PMID: 299812)
      Radiology. 1990 Feb;174(2):517-26. (PMID: 2296660)
      Radiology. 2018 Jul;288(1):129-137. (PMID: 29558294)
      PLoS One. 2013 Aug 26;8(8):e72679. (PMID: 23991141)
      PLoS One. 2013 Dec 16;8(12):e82875. (PMID: 24358232)
    • Publication Date:
      Date Created: 20200311 Date Completed: 20200619 Latest Revision: 20200619
    • Publication Date:
      20240105
    • Accession Number:
      PMC7064235
    • Accession Number:
      10.1371/journal.pone.0229983
    • Accession Number:
      32155203