Share：
Share this content in WeChat
X
[Chinese][PDF]99284
• Original Article •
MR diffusion kurtosis imaging versus standard diffusion imaging: changes with radiation in uterine cervical carcinoma xenografts
CAO Kun  WANG Shuai  ZHAO Bo  LI Xiao-ting  TANG Lei  SUN Ying-shi 

DOI:10.12015/issn.1674-8034.2017.09.008.


[Abstract] Objective: To explore the changes of diffusion-kurtosis imaging (DKI) derived parameters after radiation treatment in cervical cancer xenografts, comparing with traditional apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values.Materials and Methods: HELA cell cervical cancer xenografts were built with one tumor in inguinal region and one tumor in contralateral side axillary cavity for each mouse. Radiation were performed on groin area with a single dose of 15 Gy, taking axillary tumors as non-treated contrast. MRI were performed before radiation (pre) and at the 7th day (post) after radiation on a 1.5 T scanner using phase-array animal coil. Maps of mean kurtosis (MK), mean diffusivity (MD) and ADC values were generated with in-house-made software developed in Matlab. Regions of interests covering whole tumor were drawn for each lesion. Average and median values of MK, MD and ADC, respectively, were acquired and the relationships were compared. Differences before and after radiation were compared within treated group and the contrast group using paired sample t test.Results: Strong negative relation of ADC and MK, and strong positive relation of ADC and MD were seen before radiation (r>0.7). After radiation, treated tumors got increased ADC (ADCav 0.571±0.063×10-3 mm2/s v.s. 0.611±0.055×10-3 mm2/s, P=0.015. ADCm 0.543±0.052×10-3 mm2/s v.s. 0.587±0.041×10-3 mm2/s, P=0.013) and decreased MK (MK 1.14±0.12 v.s. 1.02±0.10, P=0.003. MKm 1.13±0.10 v.s. 1.14±0.10, P=0.003) while MD tended to increase but with no statistical significance (MDav 0.856±0.105×10-3 mm2/s v.s. 0.885±0.071×10-3 mm2/s, P>0.05. MDm 0.843±0.113×10-3 mm2/s v.s. 0.878±0.081×10-3 mm2/s, P>0.05). The average changing rates were 9.4% for MK and 7.5% for MD. No differences were found in the contrast group.Conclusions: Both ADC and MK were able to change with radiation treatment for cervical cancer, in which MK got higher changing rate, thus making DKI hold the potential to use as a tool in therapy evaluation.
[Keywords] Uterine cervical neoplasms；Radiation therapy；Magnetic resonance imaging

CAO Kun Key laboratory of Carcinogenesis and Translational Research (Ministry of Education), Radiology Department, Peking University Cancer Hospital & Institute, Beijing 100142, China

WANG Shuai Key laboratory of Carcinogenesis and Translational Research (Ministry of Education), Radiology Department, Peking University Cancer Hospital & Institute, Beijing 100142, China

ZHAO Bo Key laboratory of Carcinogenesis and Translational Research (Ministry of Education), Radiology Department, Peking University Cancer Hospital & Institute, Beijing 100142, China

LI Xiao-ting Key laboratory of Carcinogenesis and Translational Research (Ministry of Education), Radiology Department, Peking University Cancer Hospital & Institute, Beijing 100142, China

TANG Lei Key laboratory of Carcinogenesis and Translational Research (Ministry of Education), Radiology Department, Peking University Cancer Hospital & Institute, Beijing 100142, China

SUN Ying-shi* Key laboratory of Carcinogenesis and Translational Research (Ministry of Education), Radiology Department, Peking University Cancer Hospital & Institute, Beijing 100142, China

*Correspondence to: Sun YS, E-mail: sunysabc@163.com

Conflicts of interest   None.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS  This work was supported by a grant from National Natural Science Foundation of China No. 81402167 a grant from the Capital Health Research and Development of Special No. 2014-4-2155
Received  2017-05-17
Accepted  2017-07-15
DOI: 10.12015/issn.1674-8034.2017.09.008
DOI:10.12015/issn.1674-8034.2017.09.008.

[1]
Kuang F, Ren J, Zhong Q, et al. The value of apparent diffusion coefficient in the assessment of cervical cancer. Eur Radiol, 2013,23(4): 1050-1058.
[2]
Ho JC, Allen PK, Bhosale PR, et al. Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging as a predictor of outcome in cervical cancer after chemoradiation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys, 2017, 97(3):546-553.
[3]
Marconi DG, Fregnani JH, Rossini RR, et al. Pre-treatment MRI minimum apparent diffusion coefficient value is a potential prognostic imaging biomarker in cervical cancer patients treated with definitive chemoradiation. BMC Cancer, 2016, 16: 556.
[4]
智德波，邱本胜.正常前列腺组织磁共振弥散加权成像在不同b值下的最优拟合模型研究.磁共振成像, 2015, 38(8): 631-635.
[5]
Rosenkrantz AB, Sigmund EE, Johnson G, et al. Prostate cancer: feasibility and preliminary experience of a diffusional kurtosis model for detection and assessment of aggressiveness of peripheral zone cancer. Radiology2012, 264(1): 126-135.
[6]
Nogueira L, Brandao S, Matos E, et al. Application of the diffusion kurtosis model for the study of breast lesions. Eur Radiol, 2014,24(6): 1197-1203.
[7]
Sun K, Chen X, Chai W, et al. Breast cancer: diffusion kurtosis MR imaging-diagnostic accuracy and correlation with clinical-pathologic factors. Radiology, 2015, 277(1): 46-55.
[8]
林宇宁，李辉，陈自谦,等.采用MR扩散加权成像表观扩散系数值直方图诊断IB期宫颈癌的价值.中华放射学杂志, 2015, 49(5): 349-353.
[9]
曹崑，张晓鹏，孙应实,等.宫颈癌MR扩散加权成像特点研究:ADC值与临床病理特征的关系.临床放射学杂志, 2009, 28(7):957-960.
[10]
李靖，曲金荣，黎海亮,等.宫颈癌患者MR体素内不一致运动序列的成像特征.中华放射学杂志, 2013, 47(11): 1019-1022.
[11]
Jensen JH, Helpern JA, Ramani A, et al. Diffusional kurtosis imaging: the quantification of non-gaussian water diffusion by means of magnetic resonance imaging. Magn Reson Med, 2005, 53(6): 1432-1440.
[12]
Roethke MC, Kuder TA, Kuru TH, et al. Evaluation of diffusion kurtosis imaging versus standard diffusion imaging for detection and grading of peripheral zone prostate cancer. Invest Radiol, 2015,50(8): 483-489.
[13]
Ni X, Tong Y, Xiao Y, et al. Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging in predicting the radiosensitivity of cervical cancer. Int J Clin Exp Med, 2015, 8(8): 13836-13841.
[14]
Meng J, Zhu L, Zhu L, et al. Apparent diffusion coefficient histogram shape analysis for monitoring early response in patients with advanced cervical cancers undergoing concurrent chemo-radiotherapy. Radiat Oncol, 2016, 11(1): 141.
[15]
Wang Q, Li H, Yan X, et al. Histogram analysis of diffusion kurtosis magnetic resonance imaging in differentiation of pathologic Gleason grade of prostate cancer. Urol Oncol, 2015, 33(8): e315-324.
[16]
田士峰，刘爱连，陈丽华,等.扩散峰度成像预估宫颈鳞癌病理分级的价值.实用放射学杂志, 2017, 33(1): 111-114.
[17]
蒋国梁.现代肿瘤放射治疗学. 1版.上海:上海科学技术出版社, 2003: 96-97.
[18]
Tamura C, Shinmoto H, Soga S, et al. Diffusion kurtosis imaging study of prostate cancer: preliminary findings. J Magn Reson Imaging, 2014, 40(3): 723-729.
[19]
Rosenkrantz AB, Prabhu V, Sigmund EE, et al. Utility of diffusional kurtosis imaging as a marker of adverse pathologic outcomes among prostate cancer active surveillance candidates undergoing radical prostatectomy. AJR Am J Roentgenol, 2013, 201(4): 840-846.
[20]
Lawrence EM, Warren AY, Priest AN, et al. Evaluating prostate cancer using fractional tissue composition of radical prostatectomy specimens and pre-operative diffusional kurtosis magnetic resonance imaging. PLoS One, 2016, 11(7): e0159652.

PREV Effects of different concentrations of magnetic probe on growth of adipose stem cells and T2*mapping imaging
NEXT A longitudinal study of changes of brain metabolites in vascular cognitive impairment rats using 3.0 T 1H-MRS
  


LINK


Tel & Fax: +8610-67113815    E-mail: editor@cjmri.cn