4.7 Article

Value of R2*obtained from T2*-weighted imaging in predicting the prognosis of advanced cervical squamous carcinoma treated with concurrent chemoradiotherapy

Journal

JOURNAL OF MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING
Volume 42, Issue 3, Pages 681-688

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/jmri.24837

Keywords

cervical carcinoma; magnetic resonance imaging; R2*; concurrent chemoradiotherapy; prognosis

Ask authors/readers for more resources

BackgroundTo prospectively investigate the value of R2* in predicting the prognosis of advanced cervical squamous carcinoma treated with concurrent chemoradiotherapy. MethodsSixty-five patients with biopsy-proven cervical squamous carcinoma were enrolled in our study. All these subjects underwent multi-echo T2*-weighted MR imaging on a 3.0 Tesla MR scanner, and tumor R2* was calculated. The patients were divided into the responders and the nonresponders according to treatment effect. Tumor R2* values of these two groups were compared. The relationship between tumor R2* and prognosis after therapy was analyzed. ResultsThe responder group had lower R2* value than the nonresponder group (P=0.02). The area under the receiver operating characteristics curve for tumor R2* in discriminating responders from nonresponders was 0.769. A cutoff value of 23.87 Hz for tumor R2* resulted in a sensitivity of 78.3% and a specificity of 67.6%. The low R2* group (28.37 Hz) had longer median progression-free survival period and overall survival period (P=0.01, 0.03). Multivariate analysis showed that tumor R2* was a significant prognostic factor for progression-free survival and overall survival (adjusted hazards ratio=5.34, 4.78; P=0.02, 0.01). ConclusionR2* value obtained from T2*-weighted imaging, as an imaging biomarker, may be an important predictor for the prognosis of advanced cervical squamous carcinoma treated with concurrent chemoradiotherapy. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2015;42:681-688.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available