New mathematical model for examination of cervical cancer by using diffusion–weighted magnetic resonance imaging

Vaida Atstupenaite1 , Algidas Basevicius2 , Saulius Lukosevicius3 , Vincentas Veikutis4 , Daiva Vaitkiene5 , Arturas Inciura6 , Vidmantas Januskevicius7 , Dinas Vaitkaitis8

1, 2, 3Lithuanian University of Health Sciences, Medical Academy, Dept. of Radiology, Lithuania

4Lithuanian University of Health Sciences, Institute of Cardiology, Lithuania

5Lithuanian University of Health Sciences, Medical Academy, Dept. of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Lithuania

6Lithuanian University of Health Sciences, Institute of Oncology, Lithuania

7Lithuanian University of Health Sciences, Dept. of Environmental and Occupational Medicine, Lithuania

8Lithuanian University of Health Sciences, Dept. of Disaster Medicine, Lithuania

Journal of Vibroengineering, Vol. 15, Issue 2, 2013, p. 675-683.
Received 5 November 2012; accepted 3 June 2013; published 30 June 2013

Copyright © 2013 Vibroengineering This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract.

We compare the mean value of apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) in a healthy cervix, cancer affected cervix and the cervix after chemoradiation therapy and evaluate the correlation of the value of ADC with the various clinical and histological findings. Prospective clinical study accomplished in Lithuanian University of Health Sciences University Clinical Hospital. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) examinations performed on 117 women with and 49 women without cervical cancer by using a 1.5 Tesla scanner. Diffusion–weighted (DW) imaging was performing by using b values of 50, 400 and 800 s/mm2. ADC measured in a healthy cervix, cancer affected cervix and the cervix 6 months after chemoradiation therapy. The mean ADC of the patients of the study group – 0.658±0.120×10-3 mm2/s was considerably lower than the mean of the control group – 1.169±0.134×10-3 mm2/s (t= 24.123, p= 0.02). There was no correlation between mean ADC and the stage of the disease, the histological type or grade of the tumor. A weak negative correlation was detected between ADC and the age of the subjects (r= –0,337, p= 0,000). The mean ADC of responders increased to 1.111±0.138×10-3 mm2/s, the mean ADC of non-responders remained lower – 0.733±0.073×10-3 mm2/s (t= 9.158, p= 0.04). The ADC value in the case of cervical cancer is significantly lower than in the non-affected cervical tissue. It increases after effective chemoradiation therapy and becomes closer to the coefficient value of non-affected cervical tissue but remains lower. We cannot credibly consider about the stage of the disease, the histological type and grade of the tumor, according to the ADC value of cervical cancer. Slight decreasing of ADC value closely relate with elderly of patients.

Keywords: MRI, diffusion–weighted MRI, apparent diffusion coefficient, cervical cancer, chemoradiation therapy, mathematical model.

References

  1. Arbyn M., Antoine J., Valerianova Z., Mägi M., Stengrevics A., Smailyte G. et al. Trends in cervical cancer incidence and mortality in Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Romania. Tumori., 2010, Vol. 96, p. 517-523. [CrossRef]
  2. Schiffman M., Castle P., Jeronimo J., Rodriguez A., Wacholder S. Human papillomavirus and cervical cancer. Lancet., 2007, Vol. 370, No. 9590, p. 890-907. [CrossRef]
  3. Moore D. H. Cervical cancer. Obstet. Gynecol., 2006, Vol. 107, Issue 5, p. 1152-1161. [CrossRef]
  4. Kinkel K. Pitfalls in staging uterine neoplasm with imaging: a review. Abdom. Imaging, 2006, Vol. 31, Issue 2, p. 164-173. [CrossRef]
  5. Balleyguier C., Sala E., Da Cunha T., Bergman A., Brkljacic B., Danza F. et al. Staging of uterine cervical cancer with MRI: guidelines of the European Society of Urogenital Radiology. Eur. Radiol., 2011, Vol. 21, Issue 5, p. 1102-1110. [CrossRef]
  6. Harry V. N., Deans H., Ramage E., Parkin D. E., Gilbert F. J. Magnetic resonance imaging in gynecological oncology. Int. J. Gynecol. Cancer, 2009, Vol. 19, Issue 2, p. 186-193. [CrossRef]
  7. Padhani A. R., Khan A. A. Diffusion-weighted (DW) and dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for monitoring anticancer therapy. Targ. Oncol., 2010, Vol. 5, p. 39-52. [CrossRef]
  8. Whittaker C. S., Coady A., Culver L., Rustin G., Padwick M., Padhani A. R. Diffusion-weighted MR imaging of female pelvic tumors: a pictorial review. Radiographics, 2009, Vol. 29, Issue 3, p. 759-778. [CrossRef]
  9. Koh D. M., Thoeny H. C. Diffusion-Weighted MR Imaging. Berlin, Springer, 2010. [CrossRef]
  10. Koh D. M., Collins D. J. Diffusion-weighted MRI in the body: applications and challenges in oncology. AJR Am. J. Roentgenol., 2007, Vol. 188, p. 1622-1635. [CrossRef]
  11. Punwani S. Diffusion weighted imaging of female pelvic cancers: concepts and clinical applications. Eur. J. Radiol., 2011, Vol. 78, Issue 1, p. 21-29. [CrossRef]
  12. Thoeny H. C., Ross B. D. Predicting and monitoring cancer treatment response with diffusion-weighted MRI. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging, 2010, Vol. 32, Issue 1, p. 2-16. [CrossRef]
  13. Naganawa S., Sato C., Kumada H., Ishigaki T., Miura S., Takizawa O. Apparent diffusion coefficient in cervical cancer of the uterus: comparison with the normal uterine cervix. Eur. Radiol., 2005, Vol. 15, p. 71-78. [CrossRef]
  14. Zhang Y., Liang B. L., Gao L., Ye R. X., Shen J., Zhong J. L. Diffusion weighted imaging features of normal uterine cervix and cervical carcinoma. Ai. Zheng., 2007, Vol. 26, Issue 5, p. 508-512, (in Chinese). [CrossRef]
  15. McVeigh P. Z., Syed A. M., Milosevic M., Fyles A., Haider M. A. Diffusion-weighted MRI in cervical cancer. Eur. Radiol., 2008, Vol. 18, p. 1058-1064. [CrossRef]
  16. Xue H. D., Li S., Sun F., Sun H. Y., Jin Z. Y., Yang J. X. et al. Clinical application of body diffusion weighted MR imaging in the diagnosis and preoperative N staging of cervical cancer. Chin. Med. Sci. J., 2008, Vol. 23, Issue 3, p. 133-137. [CrossRef]
  17. Charles-Edwards E. M., Messiou C., Morgan V. A., De Silva S. S., McWhinney N. A., Katesmark M. et al. Diffusion-weighted imaging in cervical cancer with an endovaginal technique: potential value for improving tumor detection in stage Ia and Ib1 disease. Radiology, 2008, Vol. 249, Issue 2, p. 541-550. [CrossRef]
  18. Liu Y., Bai R., Sun H., Liu H., Wang D. Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging of uterine cervical cancer. J. Comput. Assist. Tomogr., 2009, Vol. 33, Issue 6, p. 858-862. [CrossRef]
  19. Chen Y. B., Hu C. M., Chen G. L., Hu D., Liao J. Staging of uterine cervical carcinoma: whole-body diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging. Abdom. Imaging, 2010. [CrossRef]
  20. Chen J., Zhang Y., Liang B., Yang Z. The utility of diffusion-weighted MR imaging in cervical cancer. Eur. J. Radiol., 2010, Vol. 74, Issue 3, p. 101-106. [CrossRef]
  21. Payne G. S., Schmidt M., Morgan V. A., Giles S., Bridges J., Ind T. et al. Evaluation of magnetic resonance diffusion and spectroscopy measurements as predictive biomarkers in stage 1 cervical cancer. Gynecol. Oncol., 2010, Vol. 116, Issue 2, p. 246-252. [CrossRef]
  22. Rizzo S., Summers P., Raimondi S., Belmonte M., Maniglio M., Landoni F. et al. Diffusion-weighted MR imaging in assessing cervical tumour response to nonsurgical therapy. Radiol. Med., 2011, Vol. 116, Issue 5, p. 766-780. [CrossRef]
  23. Hoogendam J. P., Klerkx W. M., De Kort G. A., Bipat S., Zweemer R. P., Sie-Go D. M. et al. The influence of the b-value combination on apparent diffusion coefficient based differentiation between malignant and benign tissue in cervical cancer. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging, 2010, Vol. 32, Issue 2, p. 376-382. [CrossRef]
  24. Harry V. N., Semple S. I., Gilbert F. I., Parkin D. E. Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging in the early detection of response to chemoradiation in cervical cancer. Gynecol. Oncol., 2008, Vol. 111, p. 213-220. [CrossRef]
  25. Liu Y., Bai R., Sun H., Liu H., Zhao X., Li Y. Diffusion-weighted imaging in predicting and monitoring the response of uterine cervical cancer to combined chemoradiation. Clin. Radiol., 2009, Vol. 64, Issue 11, p. 1067-1074. [CrossRef]