Radiation Oncology Journal

The Korean Society for Radiation Oncology (대한방사선종양학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Method of tumor volume evaluation using magnetic resonance imaging for outcome prediction in cervical cancer treated with concurrent chemotherapy and radiotherapy

  • Kim, Hun-Jung (Department of Radiation Oncology, Inha University Hospital, Inha University School of Medicine) ;
  • Kim, Woo-Chul (Department of Radiation Oncology, Inha University Hospital, Inha University School of Medicine)
  • Received : 2012.05.05
  • Accepted : 2012.06.22
  • Published : 2012.06.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Purpose: To evaluate the patterns of tumor shape and to compare tumor volume derived from simple diameter-based ellipsoid measurement with that derived from tracing the entire tumor contour using region of interest (ROI)-based 3D volumetry with respect to the prediction outcome in cervical cancer patients treated with concurrent chemotherapy and radiotherapy. Materials and Methods: Magnetic resonance imaging was performed in 98 patients with cervical cancer (stage IB-IIIB). The tumor shape was classified into two categories: ellipsoid and non-ellipsoid shape. ROI-based volumetry was derived from each magnetic resonance slice on the work station. For the diameter-based surrogate "ellipsoid volume," the three orthogonal diameters were measured to calculate volume as an ellipsoid. Results: The more than half of tumor (55.1%) had a non-ellipsoid configuration. The predictions for outcome were consistent between two volume groups, with overall survival of 93.6% and 87.7% for small tumor (<20 mL), 62.9% and 69.1% for intermediate-size tumor (20-39 mL), and 14.5% and 16.7% for large tumors (${\geq}$40 mL) using ROI and diameter based measurement, respectively. Disease-free survival was 93.8% and 90.6% for small tumor, 54.3% and 62.7% for intermediate-size tumor, and 13.7% and 10.3% for large tumor using ROI and diameter based method, respectively. Differences in outcome between size groups were statistically significant, and the differences in outcome predicted by the tumor volume by two different methods. Conclusion: Our data suggested that large numbers of cervical cancers are not ellipsoid. However, simple diameter-based tumor volume measurement appears to be useful in comparison with ROI-based volumetry for predicting outcome in cervical cancer patients.

Keywords

References

  1. Mayr NA, Yuh WT, Zheng J, et al. Tumor size evaluated by pelvic examination compared with 3-D quantitative analysis in the prediction of outcome for cervical cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1997;39:395-404. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0360-3016(97)00318-0
  2. Hricak H, Quivey JM, Campos Z, et al. Carcinoma of the cervix: predictive value of clinical and magnetic resonance (MR) imaging assessment of prognostic factors. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1993;27:791-801. https://doi.org/10.1016/0360-3016(93)90451-Z
  3. Flueckiger F, Ebner F, Poschauko H, Tamussino K, Einspieler R, Ranner G. Cervical cancer: serial MR imaging before and after primary radiation therapy: a 2-year follow-up study. Radiology 1992;184:89-93. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.184.1.1609108
  4. Kodaira T, Fuwa N, Kamata M, et al. Clinical assessment by MRI for patients with stage II cervical carcinoma treated by radiation alone in multicenter analysis: are all patients with stage II disease suitable candidates for chemoradiotherapy? Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2002;52:627-36. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0360-3016(01)02685-2
  5. Kim H, Kim W, Lee M, Song E, Loh JJ. Tumor volume and uterine body invasion assessed by MRI for prediction of outcome in cervical carcinoma treated with concurrent chemotherapy and radiotherapy. Jpn J Clin Oncol 2007;37: 858-66. https://doi.org/10.1093/jjco/hym109
  6. Eifel PJ, Morris M, Wharton JT, Oswald MJ. The influence of tumor size andmorphology on the outcome of patients with FIGO stage IB squamous cell carcinoma of the uterine cervix. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1994;29:9-16. https://doi.org/10.1016/0360-3016(94)90220-8
  7. Kovalic JJ, Perez CA, Grigsby PW, Lockett MA. The effect of volume of disease in patients with carcinoma of the uterine cervix. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1991;21:905-10. https://doi.org/10.1016/0360-3016(91)90728-M
  8. Miller TR, Grigsby PW. Measurement of tumor volume by PET to evaluate prognosis in patients with advanced cervical cancer treated by radiation therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2002;53:353-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0360-3016(02)02705-0
  9. Mayr NA, Taoka T, Yuh WT, et al. Method and timing of tumor volume measurement for outcome prediction in cervical cancer using magnetic resonance imaging. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2002;52:14-22. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0360-3016(01)01808-9
  10. Mayr NA, Yuh WT, Taoka T, et al. Serial therapy-induced changes in tumor shape in cervical cancer and their impact on assessing tumor volume and treatment response. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2006;187:65-72. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.05.0039
  11. Soutter WP, Hanoch J, D'Arcy T, Dina R, McIndoe GA, DeSouza NM. Pretreatment tumour volume measurement on highresolution magnetic resonance imaging as a predictor of survival in cervical cancer. BJOG 2004;111:741-7. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0528.2004.00172.x
  12. Narayan K, Fisher R, Bernshaw D. Significance of tumor volume and corpus uteri invasion in cervical cancer patients treated by radiotherapy. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2006;16:623-30. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1525-1438.2006.00379.x
  13. Chen AC, Sung WH, Wang PH, Sheu MH, Doong JL, Yuan CC. Correlation of three-dimensional tumor volumetry with cervical cancer prognostic parameters. Eur J Gynaecol Oncol 2002;23:401-4.
  14. Wagenaar HC, Trimbos JB, Postema S, et al. Tumor diameter and volume assessed by magnetic resonance imaging in the prediction of outcome for invasive cervical cancer. Gynecol Oncol 2001;82:474-82. https://doi.org/10.1006/gyno.2001.6267
  15. Burghardt E, Hofmann HM, Ebner F, Haas J, Tamussino K, Justich E. Magnetic resonance imaging in cervical cancer: a basis for objective classifi cation. Gynecol Oncol 1989;33:61-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/0090-8258(89)90604-5
  16. Subak LL, Hricak H, Powell CB, Azizi L, Stern JL. Cervical carcinoma: computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging for preoperative staging. Obstet Gynecol 1995;86:43-50. https://doi.org/10.1016/0029-7844(95)00109-5
  17. Martin AJ, Poon CS, Thomas GM, Kapusta LR, Shaw PA, Henkelman RM. MR evaluation of cervical cancer in hysterectomy specimens: correlation of quantitative T2 measurement and histology. J Magn Reson Imaging 1994;4:779-86. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.1880040607
  18. Narayan K, McKenzie A, Fisher R, Susil B, Jobling T, Bernshaw D. Estimation of tumor volume in cervical cancer by magnetic resonance imaging. Am J Clin Oncol 2003;26:e163-8. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.coc.0000091358.78047.b5
  19. Hofmann HM, Ebner F, Haas J, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging in clinical cervical cancer: pretherapeutic tumour volumetry. Baillieres Clin Obstet Gynaecol 1988;2:789-802. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0950-3552(98)80008-4
  20. Mazumdar M, Smith A, Schwartz LH. A statistical simulation study finds discordance between WHO criteria and RECIST guideline. J Clin Epidemiol 2004;57:358-65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2003.07.015
  21. Prasad SR, Jhaveri KS, Saini S, Hahn PF, Halpern EF, Sumner JE. CT tumor measurement for therapeutic response assessment: comparison of unidimensional, bidimensional, and volumetric techniques initial observations. Radiology 2002;225:416-9. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2252011604
  22. Sohaib SA, Turner B, Hanson JA, Farquharson M, Oliver RT, Reznek RH. CT assessment of tumour response to treatment: comparison of linear, cross-sectional and volumetric measures of tumour size. Br J Radiol 2000;73:1178-84. https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr.73.875.11144795
  23. Morris M, Eifel PJ, Lu J, et al. Pelvic radiation with concurrent chemotherapy compared with pelvic and para-aortic radiation for high-risk cervical cancer. N Engl J Med 1999;340:1137-43. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM199904153401501
  24. Rose PG, Bundy BN, Watkins EB, et al. Concurrent cisplatinbased radiotherapy and chemotherapy for locally advanced cervical cancer. N Engl J Med 1999;340:1144-53. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM199904153401502
  25. Whitney CW, Sause W, Bundy BN, et al. Randomized comparison of fluorouracil plus cisplatin versus hydroxyurea as an adjunct to radiation therapy in stage IIB-IVA carcinoma of the cervix with negative para-aortic lymph nodes: a Gynecologic Oncology Group and Southwest Oncology Group study. J Clin Oncol 1999;17:1339-48.
  26. Averette HE, Ford JH Jr, Dudan RC, Girtanner RE, Hoskins WJ, Lutz MH. Staging of cervical cancer. Clin Obstet Gynecol 1975;18:215-32. https://doi.org/10.1097/00003081-197509000-00023
  27. Brunschwig A. The surgical treatment of cancer of the cervix: stage I and II. Am J Roentgenol Radium Ther Nucl Med 1968;102:147-51. https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.102.1.147
  28. Heyman J, Kottmeier HL, Segerdahl CO. An investigation of the reliability of stage-grouping in cancer of the uterine cervix. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1953;32:65-79. https://doi.org/10.3109/00016345309157564
  29. Hricak H, Lacey CG, Sandles LG, Chang YC, Winkler ML, Stern JL. Invasive cervical carcinoma: comparison of MR imaging and surgical findings. Radiology 1988;166:623-31.
  30. Hricak H, Phillips TL. Editorial on "the infl uence of tumor size and morphology on the outcome of patients with FIGO stage IB squamous cell carcinoma of the uterine cervix". Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1994;29:201-3. https://doi.org/10.1016/0360-3016(94)90247-X
  31. Greco A, Mason P, Leung AW, Dische S, McIndoe GA, Anderson MC. Staging of carcinoma of the uterine cervix: MRI-surgical correlation. Clin Radiol 1989;40:401-5. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0009-9260(89)80136-9
  32. Mayr NA, Tali ET, Yuh WT, et al. Cervical cancer: application of MR imaging in radiation therapy. Radiology 1993;189:601-8. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.189.2.8210395
  33. Hricak H, Powell CB, Yu KK, et al. Invasive cervical carcinoma: role of MR imaging in pretreatment work-up: cost minimization and diagnostic efficacy analysis. Radiology 1996; 198:403-9.
  34. Hricak H. Cancer of the uterus: the value of MRI pre- and post-irradiation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1991;21:1089- https://doi.org/10.1016/0360-3016(91)90754-R
  35. Santoni R, Bucciolini M, Chiostrini C, Cionini L, Renzi R. Quantitative magnetic resonance imaging in cervical carcinoma: a report on 30 cases. Br J Radiol 1991;64:498-504. https://doi.org/10.1259/0007-1285-64-762-498
  36. Sironi S, Belloni C, Taccagni G, DelMaschio A. Invasive cervical carcinoma: MR imaging after preoperative chemotherapy. Radiology 1991;180:719-22. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.180.3.1871283
  37. Hatano K, Sekiya Y, Araki H, et al. Evaluation of the therapeutic effect of radiotherapy on cervical cancer using magnetic resonance imaging. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1999;45:639-44. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0360-3016(99)00228-X
  38. Mayr NA, Magnotta VA, Ehrhardt JC, et al. Usefulness of tumor volumetry by magnetic resonance imaging in assessing response to radiation therapy in carcinoma of the uterine cervix. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1996;35:915-24. https://doi.org/10.1016/0360-3016(96)00230-1
  39. Ohno Y, Kusumoto M, Kono M. Evaluation of therapeutic effect using enhanced MRI in lung cancer: evaluation of methods in terms of necrosis. Nihon Igaku Hoshasen Gakkai Zasshi 1997;57:783-90.

Cited by

  1. Treatment of popliteal cysts via arthroscopic enlargement of unidirectional valvular slits vol.25, pp.5, 2015, https://doi.org/10.3109/14397595.2015.1008779
  2. Rathke’s cleft cysts: a 6-year experience of surgery vs. observation with comparative volumetric analysis vol.22, pp.4, 2012, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11102-019-00962-y
  3. Imaging-Based Subtypes of Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma Exhibit Differential Growth and Metabolic Patterns in the Pre-Diagnostic Period: Implications for Early Detection vol.10, pp.None, 2012, https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2020.596931
  4. Fertility-sparing surgery of cervical cancer &gt;2 cm (International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics 2009 stage IB1-IIA) after neoadjuvant chemotherapy vol.30, pp.1, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1136/ijgc-2019-000647
  5. Mathematical prediction of clinical outcomes in advanced cancer patients treated with checkpoint inhibitor immunotherapy vol.6, pp.18, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aay6298
  6. Tumor volume and sphericity as predictors of local control after stereotactic radiosurgery for limited number (1‐4) brain metastases from nonsmall cell lung cancer vol.16, pp.3, 2012, https://doi.org/10.1111/ajco.13309
  7. Brain tumor detection based on hybrid deep neural network in MRI by adaptive squirrel search optimization vol.80, pp.2, 2012, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11042-020-09810-9
  8. Liposomal IR-780 as a Highly Stable Nanotheranostic Agent for Improved Photothermal/Photodynamic Therapy of Brain Tumors by Convection-Enhanced Delivery vol.13, pp.15, 2012, https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers13153690