4.7 Article

Blood oxygenation level-dependent MR imaging as a predictor of therapeutic response to concurrent chemoradiotherapy in cervical cancer: a preliminary experience

期刊

EUROPEAN RADIOLOGY
卷 24, 期 7, 页码 1514-1520

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00330-014-3167-0

关键词

Cervical cancer; MRI; Concurrent chemoradiotherapy; Blood oxygenation level-dependent MRI; Biomarker

向作者/读者索取更多资源

To investigate the value of blood oxygenation level-dependent (BOLD) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) as a predictor of therapeutic response in cervical cancer patients undergoing concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT). Thirty consecutive patients with biopsy-proven cervical cancer were examined by BOLD MRI before (preTx) and after CCRT (postTx). The R2* value (s(-1)) was calculated in the tumour and normal myometrium for preTx and postTx studies. Final tumour responses, as determined by changes of tumour size or volume on MRI, were correlated with tumour R2* values at preTx. The mean R2* values of tumours at preTx (21.1) were significantly lower than those at postTx (39.4 s(-1)) (p < 0.001), while those of normal myometrium were similar between preTx and postTx (p = 0.363). At preTx, tumour R2* values showed significantly negative correlation with final tumour size response (p = 0.022, Spearman's coefficient = -0.415). However, tumour R2* values at preTx were not associated with final tumour volume response (p = 0.069). BOLD MRI at 3 T, as an imaging biomarker, may have the potential to evaluate therapeutic response in cervical cancers. The association between BOLD MRI findings and CCRT responses warrants further validation. aEuro cent Hypoxia in cervical cancer is an independent risk factor aEuro cent BOLD MRI reflect oxygenation status of tissue adjacent to perfused microvessels aEuro cent Pretreatment tumour R2* reveal negative correlation with final tumour size response aEuro cent Accurate oxygenation assessment in cervical cancer may help clinical decision making.

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

4.7
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