Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Histogram analysis of apparent diffusion coefficient for the assessment of local aggressiveness of cervical cancer

  • Gynecologic Oncology
  • Published:
Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To retrospectively explore the value of apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) histogram in assessing local aggressiveness of cervical cancer.

Methods

53 patients with cervical cancer, including 7 cases at stage IB1, 17 cases at stage IB2 and 29 cases at stage IIA, were subjected to preoperative MRI including diffusion-weighted imaging with b values of 0 and 800 s/mm2. The average of mean ADC values (ADCmean), minimum ADC values (ADCmin) and the 5th to 85th percentile ADC values every 10 % (ADC5 %, ADC15 %, ADC85 %) were measured. ADC values were compared between subgroups according to pathologic subtype, histological differentiation, depth of cervical infiltration, and lymph node metastases.

Results

ADCmean and ADCmin for adenocarcinoma were 1,170.3 ± 97.8 × 10−6 and 748.7 ± 157.5 × 10−6 mm2 s−1, respectively, significantly higher than that of squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) (1,053.8 ± 134.3 × 10−6 and 615.6 ± 170.2 × 10−6 mm2 s−1, respectively). ADCmean and ADC5 %–ADC85 % of well or moderately tumor were significantly higher than poorly differentiated tumor, but ADCmin was not significantly different among different differentiated cervical cancer. Only ADC5 %–ADC45 % could discriminate well or moderately differentiated SCC from poorly differentiated SCC. ADC5 % for distinguishing well/moderately from poorly differentiated cervical cancer had a largest AUC (0.83). There was no statistical difference in ADC value for different depth of cervical infiltration or lymph node metastases.

Conclusions

ADC values are helpful in assessing pathologic subtype and the differentiation of cervical cancer.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Orfanoudaki IM, Kappou D, Sifakis S (2011) Recent advances in optical imaging for cervical cancer detection. Arch Gynecol Obstet 284:1197–1208

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Tong T, Yajia G, Huaying W, Weijun P (2012) Application of 1.5 T magnetic resonance imaging in endometrial cancer. Arch Gynecol Obstet 285:1113–1118

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Biewenga P, van der Velden J, Mol BW, Stalpers LJ, Schilthuis MS, van der Steeg JW, Burger MP, Buist MR (2011) Prognostic model for survival in patients with early stage cervical cancer. Cancer 117:768–776

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Stenstedt K, Hellström AC, Fridsten S, Blomqvist L (2011) Impact of MRI in the management and staging of cancer of the uterine cervix. Acta Oncol 50:420–426

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Duncan KA, Drinkwater KJ, Frost C, Remedios D, Barter S (2012) Staging cancer of the uterus: a national audit of MRI accuracy. Clin Radiol 67:523–530

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Hamstra DA, Rehemtulla A, Ross BD (2007) Diffusion magnetic resonance imaging: a biomarker for treatment response in oncology. J Clin Oncol 25:4104–4109

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Punwani S (2011) Diffusion weighted imaging of female pelvic cancers: concepts and clinical applications. Eur J Radiol 78:21–29

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Li S, Sun F, Jin ZY et al (2007) Whole-body diffusion-weighted imaging: technical improvement and preliminary results. J Magn Reson Imaging 26:1139–1144

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Nakamura K, Joja I, Nagasaka T et al (2012) The mean apparent diffusion coefficient value (ADCmean) on primary cervical cancer is a predictive marker for disease recurrence. Gynecol Oncol 127:478–483

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Tozer DJ, Jäger HR, Danchaivijitr N et al (2007) Apparent diffusion coefficient histograms may predict low-grade glioma subtype. NMR Biomed 20:49–57

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Costantini M, Belli P, Rinaldi P et al (2010) Diffusion-weighted imaging in breast cancer: relationship between apparent diffusion coefficient and tumour aggressiveness. Clin Radiol 65:1005–1012

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Itou Y, Nakanishi K, Narumi Y, Nishizawa Y, Tsukuma H (2011) Clinical utility of apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values in patients with prostate cancer: can ADC values contribute to assess the aggressiveness of prostate cancer? J Magn Reson Imaging 33:167–172

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Barajas RF Jr, Rubenstein JL, Chang JS, Hwang J, Cha S (2010) Diffusion-weighted MR imaging derived apparent diffusion coefficient is predictive of clinical outcome in primary central nervous system lymphoma. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 31:60–66

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Liu Y, Bai R, Sun H, Liu H, Wang D (2009) Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging of uterine cervical cancer. J Comput Assist Tomogr 33:858–862

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Payne GS, Schmidt M, Morgan VA et al (2010) Evaluation of magnetic resonance diffusion and spectroscopy measurements as predictive biomarkers in stage 1 cervical cancer. Gynecol Oncol 116:246–252

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Kang Y, Choi SH, Kim YJ et al (2011) Gliomas: histogram analysis of apparent diffusion coefficient maps with standard- or high-b-value diffusion-weighted MR imaging—correlation with tumor grade. Radiology 261:882–890

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Kyriazi S, Collins DJ, Messiou C et al (2011) Metastatic ovarian and primary peritoneal cancer: assessing chemotherapy response with diffusion-weighted MR imaging—value of histogram analysis of apparent diffusion coefficients. Radiology 26:182–192

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. McVeigh PZ, Syed AM, Milosevic M, Fyles A, Haider MA (2008) Diffusion-weighted MRI in cervical cancer. Eur Radiol 18:1058–1064

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Abu-Rustum NR, Alektiar K, Iasonos A et al (2006) The incidence of symptomatic lower-extremity lymphedema following treatment of uterine corpus malignancies: a 12-year experience at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center. Gynecol Oncol 103:714–718

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Alexander-Sefre F, Chee N, Spencer C et al (2006) Surgical morbidity associated with radical trachelectomy and radical hysterectomy. Gynecol Oncol 101:450–454

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Pieterse QD, Maas CP, ter Kuile MM et al (2006) An observational longitudinal study to evaluate miction, defecation, and sexual function after radical hysterectomy with pelvic lymphadenectomy for earlystage cervical cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer 16:1119–1129

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Meirovitz M, Sade S, Dreiher J et al (2013) Is radical hysterectomy necessary in early cervical cancer? Gynecol Obstet Invest 76:158–162

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Pluta M, Rob L, Charvat M et al (2009) Less radical surgery than radical hysterectomy in early stage cervical cancer: a pilot study. Gynecol Oncol 113:181–184

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Kim MK, Kim JW, Kim MA et al (2010) Feasibility of less radical surgery for superficially invasive carcinoma of the cervix. Gynecol Oncol 119:187–191

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Kodama J, Kusumoto T, Nakamura K et al (2011) Factors associated with parametrial involvement in stage IB1 cervical cancer and identification of patients suitable for less radical surgery. Gynecol Oncol 122:491–494

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Motoshima S, Irie H, Nakazono T, Kamura T, Kudo S (2011) Diffusion-weighted MR imaging in gynecologic cancers. J Gynecol Oncol 22:275–287

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Zou QG, Xu HB, Liu F, Guo W, Kong XC, Wu Y (2011) In the assessment of supratentorial glioma grade: the combined role of multivoxel proton MR spectroscopy and diffusion tensor imaging. Clin Radiol 66:953–960

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Curvo-Semedo L, Lambregts DM, Maas M, Beets GL, Caseiro-Alves F, Beets-Tan RG (2012) Diffusion-weighted MRI in rectal cancer: apparent diffusion coefficient as a potential noninvasive marker of tumor aggressiveness. J Magn Reson Imaging 35:1365–1371

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Nishie A, Tajima T, Asayama Y et al (2011) Diagnostic performance of apparent diffusion coefficient for predicting histological grade of hepatocellular carcinoma. Eur J Radiol 80:e29–e33

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Razek AA, Fathy A, Gawad TA (2011) Correlation of apparent diffusion coefficient value with prognostic parameters of lung cancer. J Comput Assist Tomogr 35:248–252

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Matoba M, Tonami H, Kondou T et al (2007) Lung carcinoma: diffusion-weighted mr imaging—preliminary evaluation with apparent diffusion coefficient. Radiology 243:570–577

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Dzik-Jurasz A, Domenig C, George M et al (2002) Diffusion MRI for prediction of response of rectal cancer to chemoradiation. Lancet 27:307–308

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Sugahara T, Korogi Y, Kochi M et al (1999) Usefulness of diffusion-weighted MRI with echo-planar technique in the evaluation of cellularity in gliomas. J Magn Reson Imaging 9:53–60

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Verma S, Rajesh A, Morales H et al (2011) Assessment of aggressiveness of prostate cancer: correlation of apparent diffusion coefficient with histologic grade after radical prostatectomy. AJR Am J Roentgenol 196:374–381

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

We declare that we have no conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Shuai Fu Yuan #1, Beijing, 100730, China

    Huadan Xue, Cui Ren, Zhaoyong Sun, Shuo Li & Zhengyu Jin

  2. Department of Gynecology, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Shuai Fu Yuan #1, Beijing, 100730, China

    Jiaxin Yang & Keng Shen

  3. Department of Pathology, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Shuai Fu Yuan #1, Beijing, 100730, China

    Weixun Zhou

Authors
  1. Huadan Xue
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Cui Ren
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jiaxin Yang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Zhaoyong Sun
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Shuo Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Zhengyu Jin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Keng Shen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Weixun Zhou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Zhengyu Jin, Keng Shen or Weixun Zhou.

Additional information

H. Xue and C. Ren contributed equally to this work.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Xue, H., Ren, C., Yang, J. et al. Histogram analysis of apparent diffusion coefficient for the assessment of local aggressiveness of cervical cancer. Arch Gynecol Obstet 290, 341–348 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-014-3221-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-014-3221-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation