Objective criteria for MRI evaluation of the effectiveness of treatment of bone metastases in patients with prostate cancer and breast cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis

Мұқаба

Дәйексөз келтіру

Толық мәтін

Аннотация

BACKGROUND: The possibility of a personalized approach to the treatment of metastatic prostate cancer and breast cancer requires objective methods for the evaluation of the response of foci treatment in the skeleton. The proven high efficiency of MRI in detecting bone metastases, in combination with the absence of ionizing radiation, has laid the groundwork for using this method in monitoring the treatment course based on objective criteria for evaluation of the therapeutic outcome.

AIM: To assess the possibilities of quantitative and semi-quantitative parameters of MRI-evaluation of treatment efficacy (radiation, chemotherapy, hormone therapy, and targeted therapy) of bone metastases that were used in prostate and breast cancer clinical trials.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: We searched the databases Embase, PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), eLibrary until April 1, 2021, using the following keywords: magnetic resonance imaging, MRI, DWI, treatment response, prostate or breast cancer, and bone metastasis. We only included studies related to the MRI-evaluation of treatment efficacy of any type of therapeutic intervention (with the exception of surgery) for metastatic skeletal lesions in this review.

RESULTS: We selected and analyzed 11 out of 312 sources found as a result of the search. It allowed us to identify four groups of objective MRI criteria for evaluating the therapeutic effect in metastatic bone lesions in patients with prostate and breast cancer, including the dynamics of sizes, signal intensity on DWI, ADC, and tumor total diffusion volume (tDV). Changes in these quantitative and semi-quantitative indicators, with only one exception, had the same direction, although they differed in numerical values. A random-effects model was used for analysis considering the presence of statistically significant heterogeneity (p <0,1 for χ2 test; I2 >40%),. The change in ADC as a result of treatment averaged +0.35 [+0.12; +0.49] ×10−3 mm2/s, with average values of ADC before treatment ― 0.83 [0.71; 1.03] ×10−3 mm2/s, after treatment ― 1.18 [0.83; 1.49] ×10−3 mm2/s.

CONCLUSION: MRI is an informative technique for the objective evaluation of the response of bone metastases to therapy in patients with prostate cancer and breast cancer based on quantitative and semi-quantitative parameters. It has significant potential as a diagnostic test instrument for monitoring the effectiveness of treatment of metastatic skeletal lesions.

Толық мәтін

##article.viewOnOriginalSite##

Авторлар туралы

Vladislav Ripp

A. Tsyb Medical Radiological Research Center — branch of the National Medical Research Radiological Center of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation

Email: rippnba@gmail.com
ORCID iD: 0000-0001-8970-4212

Radiologist of the MRI Department

Ресей, 4 Korolev street, Obninsk, 249036

Tatyana Berezovskaya

A. Tsyb Medical Radiological Research Center — branch of the National Medical Research Radiological Center of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation

Email: berez@mrrc.obninsk.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-3549-4499

MD, Senior Research Associate, Dr. Sci. (Med.), Professor

4 Korolev street, Obninsk, 249036

Sergey Ivanov

A. Tsyb Medical Radiological Research Center — branch of the National Medical Research Radiological Center of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation

Хат алмасуға жауапты Автор.
Email: oncourolog@gmail.com
ORCID iD: 0000-0001-7689-6032

MD, Dr. Sci. (Med.), Professor

Ресей, 4 Korolev street, Obninsk, 249036

Әдебиет тізімі

  1. Lecouvet FE, Larbi A, Pasoglou V, et al. MRI for response assessment in metastatic bone disease. Eur Radiol. 2013;23(7): 1986–1997. doi: 10.1007/s00330-013-2792-3
  2. Padhani AR, Makris A, Gall P, et al. Therapy monitoring of skeletal metastases with whole-body diffusion MRI. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2014;39(5):1049–1078. doi: 10.1002/jmri.24548
  3. Woolf DK, Padhani AR, Makris A. Assessing response to treatment of bone metastases from breast cancer: what should be the standard of care? Ann Oncol. 2015;26(6):1048–1057. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdu558
  4. Padhani AR, Gogbashian A. Bony metastases: assessing response to therapy with whole-body diffusion MRI. Cancer Imaging. 2011;11(1A):S129–S145. doi: 10.1102/1470-7330.2011.9034
  5. Byun WM, Shin SO, Chang Y, et al. Diffusion-weighted MR imaging of metastatic disease of the spine: assessment of response to therapy. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2002;23(6):906–912.
  6. Padhani AR, Lecouvet FE, Tunariu N, et al. METastasis reporting and data system for prostate cancer: practical guidelines for acquisition, interpretation, and reporting of whole-body magnetic resonance imaging-based evaluations of multiorgan involvement in advanced prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2017;71(1):81–92. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2016.05.033
  7. Zugni F, Ruju F, Pricolo P, et al. The added value of whole-body magnetic resonance imaging in the management of patients with advanced breast cancer. PLoS One. 2018;13(10):e0205251. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0205251
  8. Yang HL, Liu T, Wang XM, et al. Diagnosis of bone metastases: a meta-analysis comparing ¹⁸FDG PET, CT, MRI and bone scintigraphy. Eur Radiol. 2011;21(12):2604–2617. doi: 10.1007/s00330-011-2221-4
  9. Messiou C, Collins DJ, Giles S, et al. Assessing response in bone metastases in prostate cancer with diffusion weighted MRI. Eur Radiol. 2011;21(10):2169–2177. doi: 10.1007/s00330-011-2173-8
  10. Reischauer C, Froehlich JM, Koh DM, et al. Bone metastases from prostate cancer: assessing treatment response by using diffusion-weighted imaging and functional diffusion maps ― initial observations. Radiology. 2010;257(2):523–531. doi: 10.1148/radiol.10092469
  11. Perez-Lopez R, Mateo J, Mossop H, et al. Diffusion-weighted imaging as a treatment response biomarker for evaluating bone metastases in prostate cancer: a pilot study. Radiology. 2017;283(1):168–177. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2016160646
  12. Blackledge MD, Collins DJ, Tunariu N, et al. Assessment of treatment response by total tumor volume and global apparent diffusion coefficient using diffusion-weighted MRI in patients with metastatic bone disease: a feasibility study. PLoS One. 2014; 9(4):e91779. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0091779
  13. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med. 2009;6(7):e1000100. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000100
  14. Amir-Behghadami M, Janati A. Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcomes and Study (PICOS) design as a framework to formulate eligibility criteria in systematic reviews. Emerg Med J. 2020;37(6):387. doi: 10.1136/emermed-2020-209567
  15. Whiting PF. QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann Intern Med. 2011;155(8): 529–536. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-155-8-201110180-00009
  16. Sergeev NI, Kotlyarov PM, Solodkii VA. Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging in the assessment of chemoradiation treatment of metastatic lesions of bone structures. Bulletin of the Russian Scientific Center of Radiology of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation. 2016;16(3):2. (In Russ).
  17. Çiray I, Lindman H, Åström KGO, et al. Early response of breast cancer bone metastases to chemotherapy evaluated with mr imaging. Acta Radiologica. 2001;42(2):198–206. doi: 10.1080/028418501127346503
  18. Brown AL, Middleton G, Macvicar AD, et al. T1-weighted magnetic resonance imaging in breast cancer vertebral metastases: Changes on treatment and correlation with response to therapy. Clin Radiol. 1998;53(7):493–501. doi: 10.1016/s0009-9260(98)80168-2
  19. Tombal B, Rezazadeh A, Therasse P, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging of the axial skeleton enables objective measurement of tumor response on prostate cancer bone metastases. Prostate. 2005;65(2):178–187. doi: 10.1002/pros.20280
  20. Cappabianca S, Capasso R, Urraro F, et al. Assessing response to radiation therapy treatment of bone metastases: short-term followup of radiation therapy treatment of bone metastases with diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging. J Radiotherapy. 2014. doi: 10.1155/2014/698127
  21. Kotlyarov PM, Sergeev NI, Fedina ON. MRI in the diagnosis of metastatic lesions of the skeleton and in assessing the effectiveness of treatment. Radiology Practice. 2006;6:10–15.
  22. Lecouvet FE, Talbot JN, Messiou C, et al. Monitoring the response of bone metastases to treatment with Magnetic Resonance Imaging and nuclear medicine techniques: A review and position statement by the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer imaging group. Eur J Cancer. 2014;50(15):2519–2531. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2014.07.002
  23. Grimm R, Padhani AR. Whole-body diffusion-weighted MR image analysis with syngo.via frontier MR total tumor. Magn Flash. 2017;68(2):73–75.
  24. Jambor I, Kuisma A, Ramadan S, et al. Prospective evaluation of planar bone scintigraphy, SPECT, SPECT/CT, 18F-NaF PET/CT and whole body 1.5T MRI, including DWI, for the detection of bone metastases in high risk breast and prostate cancer patients: SKELETA clinical trial. Acta Oncol. 2016;55(1):59–67. doi: 10.3109/0284186X.2015.1027411
  25. Heusner TA, Kuemmel S, Koeninger A, et al. Diagnostic value of diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (DWI) compared to FDG PET/CT for whole-body breast cancer staging. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2010;37(6):1077–1086. doi: 10.1007/s00259-010-1399-z
  26. Eisenhauer EA, Therasse P, Bogaerts J, et al. New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Eur J Cancer. 2009;45(2):228–247. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2008.10.026
  27. Costelloe CM, Chuang HH, Madewell JE, et al. Cancer response criteria and bone metastases: RECIST 1.1, MDA and PERCIST. J Cancer. 2010;1:80–92. doi: 10.7150/jca.1.80

Қосымша файлдар

Қосымша файлдар
Әрекет
1. JATS XML
Жүктеу

© Ripp V.O., Berezovskaya T.P., Ivanov S.A., 2021

Creative Commons License
Бұл мақала лицензия бойынша қол жетімді Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Осы сайт cookie-файлдарды пайдаланады

Біздің сайтты пайдалануды жалғастыра отырып, сіз сайттың дұрыс жұмыс істеуін қамтамасыз ететін cookie файлдарын өңдеуге келісім бересіз.< / br>< / br>cookie файлдары туралы< / a>