4.3 Article

Role of MRI in osteosarcoma for evaluation and prediction of chemotherapy response: correlation with histological necrosis

期刊

PEDIATRIC RADIOLOGY
卷 41, 期 4, 页码 441-450

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00247-010-1876-3

关键词

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy; Response; Osteosarcoma; MRI; Children

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Histological necrosis, the current standard for response evaluation in osteosarcoma, is attainable after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. To establish the role of surrogate markers of response prediction and evaluation using MRI in the early phases of the disease. Thirty-one treatment-na < ve osteosarcoma patients received three cycles of neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by surgery during 2006-2008. All patients underwent baseline and post-chemotherapy conventional, diffusion-weighted and dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI. Taking histological response (good response a parts per thousand yen90% necrosis) as the reference standard, various parameters of MRI were compared to it. A tumor was considered ellipsoidal; volume, average tumor plane and its relative value (average tumor plane relative/body surface area) was calculated using the standard formula for ellipse. Receiver operating characteristic curves were generated to assess best threshold and predictability. After deriving thresholds for each parameter in univariable analysis, multivariable analysis was carried out. Both pre-and post-chemotherapy absolute and relative-size parameters correlated well with necrosis. Apparent diffusion coefficient did not correlate with necrosis; however, on adjusting for volume, significant correlation was found. Thus, we could derive a new parameter: diffusion per unit volume. In osteosarcoma, chemotherapy response can be predicted and evaluated by conventional and diffusion-weighted MRI early in the disease course and it correlates well with necrosis. Further, newly derived parameter diffusion per unit volume appears to be a sensitive substitute for response evaluation in osteosarcoma.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据