Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Assessing response in bone metastases in prostate cancer with diffusion weighted MRI

  • Magnetic Resonance
  • Published:
European Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objectives

To determine whether changes in ADC of bone metastases secondary to prostate carcinoma are significantly different in responders compared with progressors on chemotherapy.

Methods

Twenty-six patients with known bone metastases secondary to prostate carcinoma underwent diffusion-weighted MRI of the lumbar spine and pelvis at baseline and 12 weeks following chemotherapy. RECIST assessment of staging CT and PSA taken at the same time points were used to classify patients as responders, progressors or stable. ADC (from b = 0,50,100,250,500,750 smm−2) and ADCslow (from b = 100,250,500,750 smm−2) were calculated for up to 5 lesions per patient.

Results

Mean ADC/ADCslow in lesions from responders and progressors showed a significant increase. Although the majority of lesions demonstrated an ADC/ADCslow rise, some lesions in both responders and progressors demonstrated a fall in ADC beyond the limits of reproducibility.

Conclusions

Mean ADC is not an appropriate measure of response in bone metastases. The heterogeneity of changes in ADC is likely to be related to the composition of bone marrow with changes that have opposing effects on ADC.

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
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Clamp A, Danson S, Nguyen H, Cole D, Clemons M (2004) Assessment of therapeutic response in patients with metastatic bone disease. Lancet Oncol 5:607–616

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Scher HI (2003) Prostate carcinoma: defining therapeutic objectives and improving overall outcomes. Cancer Suppl 97:758–771

    Google Scholar 

  3. Eisenhauer EA, Therasse P, Bogaerts J, Schwartz LH, Sargent D, Ford R, et al (2009) New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Eur J Cancer 45(2):228–247

    Google Scholar 

  4. Takahara T, Imai Y, Yamashita T, Yasuda S, Nasu S, Van Cauteren M (2004) Diffusion weighted whole body imaging with background body signal suppression (DWIBS): technical improvement using free breathing, STIR and high resolution 3D display. Radiat Med 22:275–282

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Reese TG, Heid O, Weisskoff RM, Wedeen VJ (2003) Reduction of eddy-current induced distortion in diffusion MRI using twice refocused spin echo. Magn Reson Med 49:177–182

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Messiou CM, Collins DJ, Morgan VA, deSouza NM (2011) Optimising diffusion weighted MRI for imaging metastatic and myeloma bone disease and assessing reproducibility. Eur Radiol. doi:10.1007/s00330-011-2116-4

  7. Bubley GJ, Carducci M, Dahut W, Dawson N, Daliani D, Eisenberger M et al (1999) Eligibility and response guidelines for phase II clinical trials in androgen-independent prostate cancer: recommendations from the Prostate Specific Antigen Working Group. J Clin Oncol 17:3461–3467

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Lee KC, Bradley DA, Hussain M, Meyer CR, Chenevert TL, Jacobson JA et al (2007) A feasibility study evaluating the functional diffusion map as a predictive imaging biomarker for detection of treatment response in a patient with metastatic prostate cancer to the bone. Neoplasia 9:1003–1011

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Ballon D, Watts R, Dyke JP, Lis E, Morris MJ, Scher HI et al (2004) Imaging therapeutic response in human bone marrow using rapid whole-body MRI. Magn Reson Med 52:1234–1238

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Rozel S, Galbán CJ, Nicolay K, Lee KC, Sud S, Neeley C et al (2009) Synergy between anti-CCL2 and docetaxel as determined by DW-MRI in a metastatic bone cancer model. J Cell Biochem 107:58–64

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Lee KC, Sud S, Meyer CR, Moffat BA, Chenevert TL, Rehemtulla A et al (2007) An imaging biomarker of early treatment response in prostate cancer that has metastasized to the bone. Cancer Res 67:3524–3528

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Reischauer C, Froehlich JM, Koh DM, Graf N, Padevit C, John H, Binkert CA, Boesiger P, Gutzeit A (2010) Bone metastases from prostate cancer: Assessing treatment response by using diffusion weighted imaging and functional diffusion maps – initial observations. Radiology 257:523–531

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Park SH, Kim SJ, Park BC, Suh KJ, Lee JY, Park CW, Shin IH, Jeon IH (2010) Three-dimensional osseous micro-architecture of the distal humerus: implications for internal fixation of osteoporotic fracture. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 19:244–250

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Mundinger A, Wiesmeier B, Dinkel E, Helwig A, Beck A, Schulte Moenting J (1993) Quantitative image analysis of vertebral body architecture-improved diagnosis in osteoporosis based on high-resolution computed tomography. Br J Radiol 66:209–213

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Morris MJ, Akhurst T, Osman I, Nunez R, Macapinlac H, Siedlecki K, Verbel D, Schwartz L, Larson SM, Scher HI (2002) Fluorinated deoxyglucose positron emission tomography imaging in progressive metastatic prostate cancer. Urology 59:913–918

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Morris MJ, Akhurst T, Larson SM, Ditullio M, Chu E, Siedlecki K, Verbel D, Heller G, Kelly WK, Slovin S, Schwartz L, Scher HI (2005) Fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography as an outcome measure for castrate metastatic prostate cancer treated with antimicrotubule chemotherapy. Clin Cancer Res 11:3210–3216

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgement

We acknowledge the support received for the CRUK and EPSRC Cancer Imaging Centre in association with the MRC and department of Health (England) grant C1060/A10334 and also NHS funding to the NIHR Biomedical Research Centre.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Cancer Research UK Clinical Magnetic Resonance Research Group, Institute of Cancer Research and Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, Downs Road, Surrey, SM2 5PT, UK

    C. Messiou, D. J. Collins, S. Giles & N. M. de Souza

  2. Institute of Cancer Research and Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, Downs Road, Sutton, Surrey, SM2 5PT, UK

    J. S. de Bono & D. Bianchini

  3. MRI Department, The Royal Marsden Hospital, Downs Rd, Surrey, SM2 5PT, UK

    C. Messiou

Authors
  1. C. Messiou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. D. J. Collins
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. S. Giles
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. J. S. de Bono
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. D. Bianchini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. N. M. de Souza
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to C. Messiou.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Messiou, C., Collins, D.J., Giles, S. et al. Assessing response in bone metastases in prostate cancer with diffusion weighted MRI. Eur Radiol 21, 2169–2177 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-011-2173-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-011-2173-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation