Hongliang Sun1, Yanyan Xu1, Kaining Shi2, and Wu Wang1
1Radiology, China-Japan Friendship hospital, Beijing, China, People's Republic of, 2Philips Healthcare China, Beijing, China, People's Republic of
Synopsis
Neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy (CRT) followed by surgery has been
established as the standard for locally advanced rectal cancer[1]. The
treatment response after CRT is normally evaluated by MRI. However, MRI morphology techniques suffer from
limitations in the interpretation of fibrotic scar tissue and inflammation.
Diffusion weighted MRI has shown its potentially beneficial role for response
evaluation, but with conflicting results[2]. Intravoxel incoherent motion
(IVIM) which enable quantitative parameters that separately reflect tissue
diffusivity and tissue microcapillary perfusion[3-4]. However, the pretreatment
tumor IVIM MRI parameters predicting treatment response were not clarified.Purpose
To evaluate the role of pretreatment intravoxel incoherent
motion (IVIM) parameters in predicting treatment response in patients with
locally advanced rectal cancer who underwent chemoradiation therapy (CRT), with
postoperative pathological results as the reference standard.
Methods
Forty-six patients (36 men, 10 women; mean age, 59.9 years; age range, 27-79
years) with rectal cancers underwent
pelvis magnetic
resonance imaging (MRI) examination before and after CRT. All pelvis MRI examinations
were performed in 3.0T MR unit (Philips 3.0T Ingenia, Philips Medical System,
The Netherlands) including high spatial resolution T2-weighted imaging (T2WI)
and diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) sequences. Totally, eight b values (0, 25,
50, 75, 150, 400, 800 and 1000s/mm2) were used in DWI sequence, and IVIM
parameters (D, pure diffusion; f, perfusion fraction; D*, pseudo-diffusion
coefficient) were measured independently by two radiologists using
bi-exponential model analysis. Patients were categorized as responders to CRT
(patients with cancers characterized as T3 or T4 by the first MR imaging
converted to lower stage at the second MR imaging or at pathological
examination, patients with tumor volume reduction) or non-responders
(patients with stable or progressive trend)[5]. The IVIM parameters between CRT
responders and non-responders were compared by using independent samples t test or Mann-Whitney U test. Receiver
operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was used to evaluate the diagnostic
performance of IVIM parameters in predicting the response to CRT. The area
under the ROC curve (AUC) and the optimal cut-off values were calculated,
meanwhile accuracy rate, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value
(PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) was determined. Interobserver
agreement of IVIM parameter values were evaluated using Kappa values. P<0.05 was considered to
indicate a statistically significant difference.
Result
Interobserver agreement for IVIM parameters measurement was good with
kappa values range from 0.683 to 0.856. There were 25 CRT responders and 21
non-responders. D values were significantly lower in CRT responders (D
=[1.03±0.31]×10
-3mm
2/s)
than in non-responders (D =[1.25±0.24]×10
-3mm
2/s), while D* and
f values showed different trend (CRT responders: D*=[34.51±24.12]×10
-3mm
2/s,
[18.34±6.90]%; non-responders:
D*=[14.35±13.19]×10
-3mm
2/s,
[16.81±11.33]%) ( Figure 1-2). According
to ROC curve, D and D* values showed diagnostic significance with the AUC values of 0.773, 0.773, respectively.
The cutoff values for D and D* were 1.052×10
-3mm
2/s
( D values of CRT non-responders was greater than this value; accuracy
rate 73.91%, sensitivity 80.95%, specificity 68.00%, PPV 68.00%, NPV 80.95% ),
23.516×10-3mm2/s (D* values of CRT responders was
greater than this value; accuracy rate 73.91%, sensitivity 68.00%, specificity
80.95%, PPV 80.95%, NPV 68.00% ), respectively.
Conclusion
Pretreatment IVIM
parameters (D, D*) measurements were reproducible and may be used
as a non-invasive index to evaluate response to CRT in locally advanced rectal
cancer.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by a grant from the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 81501469).References
1. Sauer R, Becker H, Hohenberger W, et al. Preoperative
versus postoperative chemoradiotherapy for rectal cancer. N Engl J Med 2004;
351: 1731e40.
2. Hötker AM, Garcia-Aguilar J, Gollub MJ. Multiparametric
MRI of rectal cancer in the assessment of response to therapy: a systematic
review. Dis Colon Rectum. 2014; 57(6): 790-9.
3. Le Bihan D, Breton E, Lallemand D, et al. Separation of
diffusion and perfusion in intravoxel
incoherent motion MR imaging. Radiology.
1988;168(2):497-505.
4. Koh DM, Collins DJ, Orton MR. Intravoxel incoherent
motion in body diffusion-weighted MRI: reality and challenges. Am J Roentgenol.
2011 Jun;196(6):1351-61.
5. Birlik, B., et al., Diffusion-weighted MRI and MR-
volumetry - in the evaluation of tumor response after preoperative chemoradiotherapy
in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer. Magnetic Resonance Imaging.
2015. 33(2): 201-212.