Display options
Cite
Amit P, Malhotra A, Kumar R, et al. Evaluation of static and dynamic MRI for assessing response of bone sarcomas to preoperative chemotherapy: Correlation with histological necrosis. Indian J Radiol Imaging. 2015;25(3):269-75doi: 10.4103/0971-3026.161452.
Amit, P., Malhotra, A., Kumar, R., Kumar, L., Patro, D. K., & Elangovan, S. (2015). Evaluation of static and dynamic MRI for assessing response of bone sarcomas to preoperative chemotherapy: Correlation with histological necrosis. The Indian journal of radiology & imaging, 25(3), 269-75. https://doi.org/10.4103/0971-3026.161452
Amit, Priyadarshi, et al. "Evaluation of static and dynamic MRI for assessing response of bone sarcomas to preoperative chemotherapy: Correlation with histological necrosis." The Indian journal of radiology & imaging vol. 25,3 (2015): 269-75. doi: https://doi.org/10.4103/0971-3026.161452
Amit P, Malhotra A, Kumar R, Kumar L, Patro DK, Elangovan S. Evaluation of static and dynamic MRI for assessing response of bone sarcomas to preoperative chemotherapy: Correlation with histological necrosis. Indian J Radiol Imaging. 2015 Jul-Sep;25(3):269-75. doi: 10.4103/0971-3026.161452. PMID: 26288521; PMCID: PMC4531451.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

Indian J Radiol Imaging. 2015 Jul-Sep;25(3):269-75. doi: 10.4103/0971-3026.161452.

Evaluation of static and dynamic MRI for assessing response of bone sarcomas to preoperative chemotherapy: Correlation with histological necrosis.

The Indian journal of radiology & imaging

Priyadarshi Amit, Atul Malhotra, Rahul Kumar, Lokesh Kumar, Dilip Kumar Patro, Sundar Elangovan

Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthopaedics, Max Super Speciality Hospital, New Delhi, India.
  2. Department of Orthopaedics, Sport Injury Centre, Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi, India.
  3. Department of Radiodiagnosis, Sport Injury Centre, Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi, India.
  4. Department of Orthopaedics, Jawaharlal Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education and Research, Pondicherry, India.
  5. Department of Radiodiagnosis, Jawaharlal Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education and Research, Pondicherry, India.

PMID: 26288521 PMCID: PMC4531451 DOI: 10.4103/0971-3026.161452

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Preoperative chemotherapy plays a key role in management of bone sarcomas. Postoperative evaluation of histological necrosis has been the gold standard method of assessing response to preoperative chemotherapy. This study was done to evaluate the efficacy of static and dynamic magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for assessing response preoperatively.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: Our study included 14 patients (12 osteosarcomas and 2 malignant fibrous histiocytomas) with mean age of 21.8 years, treated with preoperative chemotherapy followed by surgery. They were evaluated with static and dynamic MRI twice, before starting chemotherapy and again prior to surgery. Change in tumor volume and slope of signal intensity - time curve were calculated and correlated with percentage of histological necrosis using Pearson correlation test.

RESULTS: The change in dynamic MRI slope was significant (P = 0.001). Also, ≥60% reduction in slope of the curve proved to be an indicator of good histological response [positive predictive value (PPV) =80%]. Change in tumor volume failed to show significant correlation (P = 0.071). Although it showed high negative predictive value (NPV = 85.7%), PPV was too low (PPV = 57.14%).

CONCLUSIONS: Dynamic MRI correctly predicts histological necrosis after administration of preoperative chemotherapy to bone sarcomas. Hence, it can be used as a preoperative indicator of response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy. On the other hand, volumetric assessment by static MRI is not an effective predictor of histological necrosis. This study proves the superiority of dynamic contrast-enhanced study over volumetric study by MRI.

Keywords: Dynamic MR; MR; histological necrosis; malignant fibrous histiocytoma; osteosarcoma; preoperative chemotherapy

References

  1. J Pediatr Oncol Nurs. 2006 Jul-Aug;23(4):176-81 - PubMed
  2. J Nucl Med. 2009 Sep;50(9):1435-40 - PubMed
  3. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 1977 Jan;101(1):14-8 - PubMed
  4. Radiology. 1992 Mar;182(3):839-44 - PubMed
  5. Eur Radiol. 2006 Dec;16(12):2637-43 - PubMed
  6. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1990 Apr;154(4):763-9 - PubMed
  7. Cancer. 1992 Feb 1;69(3):698-708 - PubMed
  8. Yonsei Med J. 2005 Feb 28;46(1):119-24 - PubMed
  9. Radiology. 1992 Nov;185(2):587-92 - PubMed
  10. Acta Radiol. 2009 Jun;50(5):512-20 - PubMed
  11. Radiology. 1995 Dec;197(3):831-9 - PubMed
  12. Radiology. 2003 Jul;228(1):271-8 - PubMed
  13. J Clin Oncol. 1993 Sep;11(9):1763-9 - PubMed
  14. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1980 Nov-Dec;(153):106-20 - PubMed
  15. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1997 Apr;(337):216-25 - PubMed
  16. Clin Radiol. 1995 Jun;50(6):384-90 - PubMed
  17. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1995 Sep;165(3):593-8 - PubMed
  18. Radiology. 1990 Jun;175(3):791-6 - PubMed
  19. Cancer. 1982 Mar 15;49(6):1221-30 - PubMed
  20. Radiology. 1992 Jul;184(1):243-8 - PubMed
  21. Semin Diagn Pathol. 1987 Aug;4(3):212-36 - PubMed
  22. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1999 Mar;81(2):317-22 - PubMed
  23. Cancer. 2012 Aug 1;118(15):3776-85 - PubMed
  24. Ann Oncol. 1992 Apr;3 Suppl 2:S23-7 - PubMed
  25. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2000 Jul;(376):200-8 - PubMed
  26. Radiology. 1989 Mar;170(3 Pt 1):839-42 - PubMed
  27. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1998 Jul;80(7):1020-33 - PubMed
  28. Clin Radiol. 1994 Jan;49(1):19-23 - PubMed
  29. Radiology. 1982 May;143(2):355-60 - PubMed

Publication Types