Article

Limitations of single slice dynamic contrast enhanced MR in pharmacokinetic modeling of bone sarcomas.

Department of Radiology, The Norfolk & Norwich University Hospital, Norwich, Norfolk, UK.
Acta Radiologica (Impact Factor: 1.33). 06/2009; 50(5):512-20. DOI:10.1080/02841850902922761
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Single slice dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (DCE-MRI) appears to provide perfusion data about sarcomas in vivo that correlate with tumor necrosis on equivalent pathological sections. However, sarcomas are heterogeneous and therefore single slice DCE-MRI may not correlate with total tumor necrosis.
To determine whether changes in pharmacokinetic modeling of DCE-MRI, during chemotherapy for primary bone sarcomas correlated with histological measures of total tumor necrosis.
Twelve patients with appendicular primary bone sarcomas were included in the study. Each patient had DCE-MRI before, and after completion, of pre-operative chemotherapy. The mean arterial slope (A), endothelial permeability coefficient (K(trans)), and extravascular extracellular volume (V(e)) were derived from each data set using a modified two compartment pharmacokinetic model. Total tumor necrosis rates were compared with changes in A, K(trans), and V(e).
Six patients had total tumor necrosis of >or=90% and six had a measure of <90%. The median percentage changes in A, K(trans), and V(e) for the >or=90% necrosis group were -52.5% (-83 to 6), -66% (-82 to 26), and 23.5% (-26 to 40), respectively. For the <90% necrosis group, A = - 35% (-75 to 132), K(trans)= - 53 (-66 to 149) and V(e)= - 14.5% (-42 to 40). One patient with >90% necrosis had increases in all three measures. Comparison of the two groups generated P-values of 0.699 for A, 0.18 for K(trans), and 0.31 for V(e).
There was no statistically significant correlation between changes in pharmacokinetic perfusion parameters and total tumor necrosis. When using single slice DCE-MRI heterogeneous histology of primary bone sarcomas and repair mediated angiogenesis might both be confounding factors.

0 0
 · 
0 Bookmarks
 · 
49 Views
  • [show abstract] [hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Standard therapy for localized osteosarcoma includes neoadjuvant chemotherapy preceding local control surgery, followed by adjuvant chemotherapy. When limb-salvage procedures were being developed, preoperative chemotherapy allowed a delay in definitive surgery to permit fabrication of custom endoprosthetic reconstruction implants. One rationale for its continuation as the care standard has been the perception that it renders surgery easier and safer. Our objective was to compare surgical procedures planned on the basis of magnetic resonance images (MRIs) of distal femoral osteosarcomas acquired before neoadjuvant chemotherapy with surgical procedures planned on the basis of MRIs acquired after neoadjuvant chemotherapy as a measure of the surgically critical anatomic effects of the chemotherapy. Twenty-four consecutive patients with distal femoral osteosarcoma had available digital MRIs preceding and following neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Thorough questionnaires were used to catalogue surgically critical anatomic details of MRI-directed surgical planning. Four faculty musculoskeletal oncologic surgeons and two musculoskeletal radiologists evaluated the blinded and randomly ordered MRIs. Interrater and intrarater reliabilities were calculated with intraclass correlation coefficients. The Student t test and chi-square test were used to compare pre-chemotherapy and post-chemotherapy continuous and categorical variables on the questionnaire. Mixed-effect regression models were employed to compare surgical procedures planned on the basis of pre-chemotherapy MRIs and with those planned on the basis of post-chemotherapy MRIs. The blinded reviews generated strong intraclass correlation coefficients for both interrater (0.772) and mean intrarater (0.778) reliability. The MRI-planned resections for the majority of tumors changed meaningfully after chemotherapy, but in inconsistent directions. On the basis of mixed-effect regression modeling, it appeared that more amputations were planned on the basis of post-chemotherapy MRIs. No other parameters differed in a significant and clinically meaningful fashion. Surgeons demonstrated their expectation that neoadjuvant chemotherapy would improve resectability by planning more radical surgical procedures on the basis of scans that they predicted had been obtained pre-chemotherapy. Surgeons can reliably record the anatomic details of a planned resection of an osteosarcoma. Such methods may be useful in future multi-institutional clinical trials or registries. The common belief that neoadjuvant chemotherapy increases the resectability of extremity osteosarcomas remains anecdotally based. Rigorous assessment of this phenomenon in larger cohorts and at other anatomic sites as well as re-evaluation of other arguments for neoadjuvant chemotherapy should be considered.
    The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery 08/2012; 94(15):1399-405. · 3.23 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [show abstract] [hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE: We demonstrate the clinical use of an MR angiography sequence performed with sparse k-space sampling (MRA), as a method for dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE)-MRI, and apply it to the assessment of sarcomas for treatment response. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Three subjects with sarcomas (2 with osteosarcoma, 1 with high-grade soft tissue sarcomas) underwent MRI after neoadjuvant therapy/prior to surgery, with conventional MRI (T1-weighted, fluid-sensitive, static post-contrast T1-weighted sequences) and DCE-MRI (MRA, time resolution = 7-10 s, TR/TE 2.4/0.9 ms, FOV 40 cm(2)). Images were reviewed by two observers in consensus who recorded image quality (1 = diagnostic, no significant artifacts, 2 = diagnostic, <25 % artifacts, 3 = nondiagnostic) and contrast enhancement characteristics by static MRI (presence/absence of contrast enhancement, percentage of enhancement) and DCE-MRI (presence/absence of arterial enhancement with time-intensity curves). Results were compared with histological response (defined as <5 % viable tumor [soft tissue sarcoma] or <10 % [bone sarcoma] following resection). RESULTS: Diagnostic quality for all conventional and DCE-MRI sequences was rated as 1. In 2 of the 3 sarcomas, there was good histological response (≤5 % viable tumor); in 1 there was poor response (50 % viable tumor). By static post-contrast T1-weighted sequences, there was enhancement in all sarcomas, regardless of response (up to >75 % with good response, >75 % with poor response). DCE-MRI findings were concordant with histological response (arterial enhancement with poor response, no arterial enhancement with good response). CONCLUSION: Unlike conventional DCE-MRI sequences, an MRA sequence with sparse k-space sampling is easily integrated into a routine musculoskeletal tumor MRI protocol, with high diagnostic quality. In this preliminary work, tumor enhancement characteristics by DCE-MRI were used to assess treatment response.
    Skeletal Radiology 04/2013; · 1.74 Impact Factor
  • [show abstract] [hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Although the function of magnetic resonance (MR) imaging in the evaluation of musculoskeletal tumors has traditionally been to help identify the extent of disease prior to treatment, its role continues to evolve as new techniques emerge. Conventional pulse sequences remain heavily used and useful, but with the advent of chemical shift imaging, diffusion-weighted imaging, perfusion imaging and MR spectroscopy, additional quantitative metrics have become available that may help expand the role of MR imaging to include detection, characterization, and reliable assessment of treatment response. This review discusses a multiparametric approach to the evaluation of musculoskeletal tumors, with a focus on the utility and potential added value of various pulse sequences in helping establish a diagnosis, assess pretreatment extent, and evaluate a tumor in the posttreatment setting for recurrence and treatment response. Supplemental material: http://radiology.rsna.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1148/radiol.12111740/-/DC1 © RSNA, 2012.
    Radiology 11/2012; 265(2):340-56. · 6.34 Impact Factor