» Articles » PMID: 32368961

Therapy Response Assessment of Pediatric Tumors with Whole-Body Diffusion-weighted MRI and FDG PET/MRI

Abstract

Background Whole-body diffusion-weighted (DW) MRI can help detect cancer with high sensitivity. However, the assessment of therapy response often requires information about tumor metabolism, which is measured with fluorine 18 fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) PET. Purpose To compare tumor therapy response with whole-body DW MRI and FDG PET/MRI in children and young adults. Materials and Methods In this prospective, nonrandomized multicenter study, 56 children and young adults (31 male and 25 female participants; mean age, 15 years ± 4 [standard deviation]; age range, 6-22 years) with lymphoma or sarcoma underwent 112 simultaneous whole-body DW MRI and FDG PET/MRI between June 2015 and December 2018 before and after induction chemotherapy (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01542879). The authors measured minimum tumor apparent diffusion coefficients (ADCs) and maximum standardized uptake value (SUV) of up to six target lesions and assessed therapy response after induction chemotherapy according to the Lugano classification or PET Response Criteria in Solid Tumors. The authors evaluated agreements between whole-body DW MRI- and FDG PET/MRI-based response classifications with Krippendorff α statistics. Differences in minimum ADC and maximum SUV between responders and nonresponders and comparison of timing for discordant and concordant response assessments after induction chemotherapy were evaluated with the Wilcoxon test. Results Good agreement existed between treatment response assessments after induction chemotherapy with whole-body DW MRI and FDG PET/MRI (α = 0.88). Clinical response prediction according to maximum SUV (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve = 100%; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 99%, 100%) and minimum ADC (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve = 98%; 95% CI: 94%, 100%) were similar ( = .37). Sensitivity and specificity were 96% (54 of 56 participants; 95% CI: 86%, 99%) and 100% (56 of 56 participants; 95% CI: 54%, 100%), respectively, for DW MRI and 100% (56 of 56 participants; 95% CI: 93%, 100%) and 100% (56 of 56 participants; 95% CI: 54%, 100%) for FDG PET/MRI. In eight of 56 patients who underwent imaging after induction chemotherapy in the early posttreatment phase, chemotherapy-induced changes in tumor metabolism preceded changes in proton diffusion ( = .002). Conclusion Whole-body diffusion-weighted MRI showed significant agreement with fluorine 18 fluorodeoxyglucose PET/MRI for treatment response assessment in children and young adults. © RSNA, 2020

Citing Articles

Correlation of 3T Diffusion-weighted MRI and F-FDG-PET/CT in Liver Metastases: SUV Versus ADC.

Tanyeri A, Akbulut R, Nevai E, Yurekli Y Mol Imaging Radionucl Ther. 2025; 34(1):48-54.

PMID: 39918041 PMC: 11827527. DOI: 10.4274/mirt.galenos.2024.37431.


Quantitative diffusion-weighted MRI response assessment in rhabdomyosarcoma: an international retrospective study on behalf of the European paediatric Soft tissue sarcoma Study Group Imaging Committee.

Ewijk R, Chatziantoniou C, Adams M, Bertolini P, Bisogno G, Bouhamama A Pediatr Radiol. 2023; 53(12):2539-2551.

PMID: 37682330 PMC: 10635937. DOI: 10.1007/s00247-023-05745-z.


Comparison of diffusion-weighted MRI and [F]FDG PET/MRI for treatment monitoring in pediatric Hodgkin and non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

Morakote W, Baratto L, Ramasamy S, Adams L, Liang T, Sarrami A Eur Radiol. 2023; 34(1):643-653.

PMID: 37542653 PMC: 10993778. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-023-10015-5.


[F]FDG PET/MRI combined with chest HRCT in early cancer detection: a retrospective study of 3020 asymptomatic subjects.

Peng L, Liao Y, Zhou R, Zhong Y, Jiang H, Wang J Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2023; 50(12):3723-3734.

PMID: 37401938 PMC: 10547651. DOI: 10.1007/s00259-023-06273-6.


Whole-Body MRI in Musculoskeletal Oncology: A Comprehensive Review with Recommendations.

Cruz I, Fayad L, Ahlawat S, Lederman H, Nico M, Ormond Filho A Radiol Imaging Cancer. 2023; 5(3):e220107.

PMID: 37144975 PMC: 10240252. DOI: 10.1148/rycan.220107.


References
1.
Hayashida Y, Yakushiji T, Awai K, Katahira K, Nakayama Y, Shimomura O . Monitoring therapeutic responses of primary bone tumors by diffusion-weighted image: Initial results. Eur Radiol. 2006; 16(12):2637-43. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-006-0342-y. View

2.
Afaq A, Andreou A, Koh D . Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging for tumour response assessment: why, when and how?. Cancer Imaging. 2010; 10 Spec no A:S179-88. PMC: 2967137. DOI: 10.1102/1470-7330.2010.9032. View

3.
Padhani A, Liu G, Koh D, Chenevert T, Thoeny H, Takahara T . Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging as a cancer biomarker: consensus and recommendations. Neoplasia. 2009; 11(2):102-25. PMC: 2631136. DOI: 10.1593/neo.81328. View

4.
Higano S, Yun X, Kumabe T, Watanabe M, Mugikura S, Umetsu A . Malignant astrocytic tumors: clinical importance of apparent diffusion coefficient in prediction of grade and prognosis. Radiology. 2006; 241(3):839-46. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2413051276. View

5.
Oeffinger K, Mertens A, Sklar C, Kawashima T, Hudson M, Meadows A . Chronic health conditions in adult survivors of childhood cancer. N Engl J Med. 2006; 355(15):1572-82. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMsa060185. View