Advertisement

Skeletal Radiology

, Volume 39, Issue 2, pp 141–146 | Cite as

The value of diffusion-weighted imaging for monitoring the chemotherapeutic response of osteosarcoma: a comparison between average apparent diffusion coefficient and minimum apparent diffusion coefficient

  • Kiyoshi OkaEmail author
  • Toshitake Yakushiji
  • Hiro Sato
  • Toshinori Hirai
  • Yasuyuki Yamashita
  • Hiroshi Mizuta
Scientific Article

Abstract

Objective

The objective of this study was to evaluate whether the average apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) or the minimum ADC is more useful for evaluating the chemotherapeutic response of osteosarcoma.

Materials and methods

Twenty-two patients with osteosarcoma were examined in this study. Diffusion-weighted (DW) and magnetic resonance (MR) images were performed for all patients before and after chemotherapy. The pre- and post-chemotherapy values were obtained both in the average and minimum ADC. The pre-chemotherapy values of the average ADC and minimum ADC respectively were compared with the post-chemotherapy values. In addition, the ADC ratios ([ADCpost - ADCpre] / ADCpre) were calculated using the average ADC and the minimum ADC. Twenty-two patients with osteosarcomas were divided into two groups, those with a good response to chemotherapy (≥ 90% tumor necrosis, n = 7) and those with a poor response (< 90% tumor necrosis, n = 15). The average ADC ratio and the minimum ADC ratio of the two groups were compared.

Results

With both the average ADC and the minimum ADC, post-chemotherapy values were significantly higher than pre-chemotherapy values (P < 0.05). The patients with a good response had a significantly higher minimum ADC ratio than those with a poor response (1.01 ± 0.22 and 0.55 ± 0.29 respectively, P < 0.05). However, with regard to the average ADC ratio, no significant difference was observed between the two groups (0.66 ± 0.18 and 0.46 ± 0.31 respectively, P = 0.19).

Conclusion

The minimum ADC is useful for evaluating the chemotherapeutic response of osteosarcoma.

Keywords

Diffusion-weighted imaging Osteosarcoma Chemotherapy Magnetic resonance imaging 

References

  1. 1.
    Shen SH, Chiou YY, Wang JH, et al. Diffusion-weighted single-shot echo-planar imaging with parallel technique in assessment of endometrial cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2008;190:481–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gourtsoyianni S, Papanikolaou N, Yarmenitis S, Maris T, Karantanas A, Gourtsoyiannis N. Respiratory gated diffusion-weighted imaging of the liver: value of apparent diffusion coefficient measurements in the differentiation between most commonly encountered benign and malignant focal liver lesions. Eur Radiol. 2008;18:486–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Manenti G, Di Roma M, Mancino S, et al. Malignant renal neoplasms: correlation between ADC values and cellularity in diffusion weighted magnetic resonance imaging at 3 T. Radiol Med. 2008;113:199–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hayashida Y, Yakushiji T, Awai K, et al. Monitoring therapeutic responses of primary bone tumors by diffusion-weighted image: initial results. Eur Radiol. 2006;16:2637–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Uhl M, Saueressig U, van Buiren M, et al. Osteosarcoma: preliminary results of in vivo assessment of tumor necrosis after chemotherapy with diffusion- and perfusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging. Invest Radiol. 2006;41:618–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Murakami R, Sugahara T, Nakamura H, et al. Malignant supratentorial astrocytoma treated with postoperative radiation therapy: prognostic value of pretreatment quantitative diffusion-weighted MR imaging. Radiology. 2007;243:493–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Harris AD, Govindaraj M, Frayne R. Minimum detectable difference of MR diffusion maps in acute ischemic stroke. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2008;27:629–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sugahara T, Korogi Y, Kochi M, et al. Usefulness of diffusion-weighted MRI with echo-planar technique in the evaluation of cellularity in gliomas. J Magn Reson Imaging. 1999;9:53–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Provenzale JM, Mukundan S, Barboriak DP. Diffusion-weighted and perfusion MR imaging for brain tumor characterization and assessment of treatment response. Radiology. 2006;239:632–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Picci P, Bacci G, Campanacci M, et al. Histologic evaluation of necrosis in osteosarcoma induced by chemotherapy. Regional mapping of viable and nonviable tumor. Cancer. 1985;56:1515–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    De Baere T, Vanel D, Shapeero LG, Charpentier A, Terrier P, di Paola M. Osteosarcoma after chemotherapy: evaluation with contrast material-enhanced subtraction MR imaging. Radiology. 1992;185:587–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Huvos AG, Rosen G, Marcove RC. Primary osteogenic sarcoma: pathologic aspects in 20 patients after treatment with chemotherapy en bloc resection, and prosthetic bone replacement. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 1977;101:14–8.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bacci G, Longhi A, Versari M, Mercuri M, Briccoli A, Picci P. Prognostic factors for osteosarcoma of the extremity treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy: 15-year experience in 789 patients treated at a single institution. Cancer. 2006;106:1154–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Rosen G, Marcove RC, Huvos AG, et al. Primary osteogenic sarcoma: eight-year experience with adjuvant chemotherapy. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. 1983;106:55–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Holscher HC, Hermans J, Nooy MA, Taminiau AH, Hogendoorn PC, Bloem JL. Can conventional radiographs be used to monitor the effect of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with osteogenic sarcoma? Skeletal Radiol. 1996;25:19–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kumpan W, Lechner G, Wittich GR, et al. The angiographic response of osteosarcoma following pre-operative chemotherapy. Skeletal Radiol. 1986;15:96–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Holscher HC, Bloem JL, Vanel D, et al. Osteosarcoma: chemotherapy-induced changes at MR imaging. Radiology. 1992;182:839–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Chenevert TL, Stegman LD, Taylor JM, et al. Diffusion magnetic resonance imaging: an early surrogate marker of therapeutic efficacy in brain tumors. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2000;92:2029–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Mardor Y, Roth Y, Lidar Z, et al. Monitoring response to convection-enhanced taxol delivery in brain tumor patients using diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging. Cancer Res. 2001;61:4971–3.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Mardor Y, Pfeffer R, Spiegelmann R, et al. Early detection of response to radiation therapy in patients with brain malignancies using conventional and high b-value diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging. J Clin Oncol. 2003;21:1094–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Deng J, Miller FH, Rhee TK, et al. Diffusion-weighted MR imaging for determination of hepatocellular carcinoma response to yttrium-90 radioembolization. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2006;17:1195–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Theilmann RJ, Borders R, Trouard TP, et al. Changes in water mobility measured by diffusion MRI predict response of metastatic breast cancer to chemotherapy. Neoplasia. 2004;6:831–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    National Cancer Institute sponsored study of classifications of non-Hodgkin’s lymphomas: summary and description of a working formulation for clinical usage—the non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma pathologic classification project. Cancer 1982; 49:2112–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© ISS 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kiyoshi Oka
    • 1
    Email author
  • Toshitake Yakushiji
    • 1
  • Hiro Sato
    • 1
  • Toshinori Hirai
    • 2
  • Yasuyuki Yamashita
    • 2
  • Hiroshi Mizuta
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Orthopaedic and Neuro-Musculoskeletal Surgery, Faculty of Medical and Pharmaceutical SciencesKumamoto UniversityKumamotoJapan
  2. 2.Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Graduate School of Medical and Pharmaceutical SciencesKumamoto UniversityKumamotoJapan

Personalised recommendations