TY - JOUR
T1 - The value of GRASP on DCE-MRI for assessing response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with esophageal cancer
AU - Lu, Yanan
AU - Ma, Ling
AU - Qin, Jianjun
AU - Wang, Zhaoqi
AU - Guo, Jia
AU - Zhao, Yan
AU - Zhang, Hongkai
AU - Yan, Xu
AU - Liu, Hui
AU - Li, Hailiang
AU - Kamel, Ihab R.
AU - Qu, Jinrong
N1 - Funding Information:
This study has received funding by the General Programs of the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No.81972802), the Project of Henan Health of China (No. 201203149), and Special Funding of the Henan Health Science and Technology Innovation Talent Project (No. 201004057) JRQ is the principle Investigator. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2019 The Author(s).
PY - 2019/10/24
Y1 - 2019/10/24
N2 - Background: To compare the value of two dynamic contrast-enhanced Magnetic Resonance Images (DCE-MRI) reconstruction approaches, namely golden-angle radial sparse parallel (GRASP) and view-sharing with golden-angle radial profile (VS-GR) reconstruction, and evaluate their values in assessing response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy (nCT) in patients with esophageal cancer (EC). Methods: EC patients receiving nCT before surgery were enrolled prospectively. DCE-MRI scanning was performed after nCT and within 1 week before surgery. Tumor Regression Grade (TRG) was used for chemotherapy response evaluation, and patients were stratified into a responsive group (TRG1 + 2) and a non-responsive group (TRG3 + 4 + 5). Wilcoxon test was utilized for comparing GRASP and VS-GR reconstruction, Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney test was performed for each parameter to assess response, and Spearman test was performed for analyzing correlation between parameters and TRGs, as well as responder and non-responder. The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) was utilized for each significant parameter to assess its accuracy between responders and non-responders. Results: Among the 64 patients included in this cohort (52 male, 12 female; average age of 59.1 ± 7.9 years), 4 patients showed TRG1, 4 patients were TRG2, 7 patients were TRG3, 11 patients were TRG4, and 38 patients were TRG5. They were stratified into 8 responders and 56 non-responders. A total of 15 parameters were calculated from each tumor. With VS-GR, 10/15 parameters significantly correlated with TRG and response groups. Of these, only AUCmax showed moderate correlation with TRG, 7 showed low correlation and 2 showed negligible correlation with TRG. 8 showed low correlation and 2 showed negligible correlation with response groups. With GRASP, 13/15 parameters significantly correlated with TRG and response groups. Of these, 10 showed low correlation and 3 showed negligible correlation with TRG. 11 showed low correlation and 2 showed negligible correlation with TRG. Seven parameters (AUC* > 0.70, P < 0.05) showed good performance in response groups. Conclusions: In patients with esophageal cancer on neoadjuvant chemotherapy, several parameters can differentiate responders from non-responders, using both GRASP and VS-GR techniques. GRASP may be able to better differentiate these two groups compared to VS-GR. Trial registration for this prospective study: ChiCTR, ChiCTR-DOD-14005308. Registered 2 October 2014.
AB - Background: To compare the value of two dynamic contrast-enhanced Magnetic Resonance Images (DCE-MRI) reconstruction approaches, namely golden-angle radial sparse parallel (GRASP) and view-sharing with golden-angle radial profile (VS-GR) reconstruction, and evaluate their values in assessing response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy (nCT) in patients with esophageal cancer (EC). Methods: EC patients receiving nCT before surgery were enrolled prospectively. DCE-MRI scanning was performed after nCT and within 1 week before surgery. Tumor Regression Grade (TRG) was used for chemotherapy response evaluation, and patients were stratified into a responsive group (TRG1 + 2) and a non-responsive group (TRG3 + 4 + 5). Wilcoxon test was utilized for comparing GRASP and VS-GR reconstruction, Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney test was performed for each parameter to assess response, and Spearman test was performed for analyzing correlation between parameters and TRGs, as well as responder and non-responder. The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) was utilized for each significant parameter to assess its accuracy between responders and non-responders. Results: Among the 64 patients included in this cohort (52 male, 12 female; average age of 59.1 ± 7.9 years), 4 patients showed TRG1, 4 patients were TRG2, 7 patients were TRG3, 11 patients were TRG4, and 38 patients were TRG5. They were stratified into 8 responders and 56 non-responders. A total of 15 parameters were calculated from each tumor. With VS-GR, 10/15 parameters significantly correlated with TRG and response groups. Of these, only AUCmax showed moderate correlation with TRG, 7 showed low correlation and 2 showed negligible correlation with TRG. 8 showed low correlation and 2 showed negligible correlation with response groups. With GRASP, 13/15 parameters significantly correlated with TRG and response groups. Of these, 10 showed low correlation and 3 showed negligible correlation with TRG. 11 showed low correlation and 2 showed negligible correlation with TRG. Seven parameters (AUC* > 0.70, P < 0.05) showed good performance in response groups. Conclusions: In patients with esophageal cancer on neoadjuvant chemotherapy, several parameters can differentiate responders from non-responders, using both GRASP and VS-GR techniques. GRASP may be able to better differentiate these two groups compared to VS-GR. Trial registration for this prospective study: ChiCTR, ChiCTR-DOD-14005308. Registered 2 October 2014.
KW - Chemotherapy
KW - Esophageal Cancer
KW - Magnetic resonance imaging
KW - Neoadjuvant therapy
KW - Treatment outcome
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85074089512&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85074089512&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1186/s12885-019-6247-3
DO - 10.1186/s12885-019-6247-3
M3 - Article
C2 - 31651280
AN - SCOPUS:85074089512
SN - 1471-2407
VL - 19
JO - BMC cancer
JF - BMC cancer
IS - 1
M1 - 999
ER -