Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Indian J Radiol Imaging 2015; 25(03): 269-275
DOI: 10.4103/0971-3026.161452
Musculoskeletal Radiology

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

Priyadarshi Amit
Department of Orthopaedics, Max Super Speciality Hospital, New Delhi, India
,
Atul Malhotra
Department of Orthopaedics, Sport Injury Centre, Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi, India
,
Rahul Kumar
Department of Orthopaedics, Sport Injury Centre, Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi, India
,
Lokesh Kumar
Department of Radiodiagnosis, Sport Injury Centre, Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi, India
,
Dilip Kumar Patro
Department of Orthopaedics, Jawaharlal Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education and Research, Pondicherry, India
,
Sundar Elangovan
Department of Radiodiagnosis, Jawaharlal Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education and Research, Pondicherry, India
› Author Affiliations Financial support and sponsorship Nil.
› Further Information
  PDF Download Permissions and Reprints

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 - histological necrosis - malignant fibrous histiocytoma - MR - osteosarcoma - preoperative chemotherapy


Publication History

Article published online:
30 July 2021

© 2015. Indian Radiological Association. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial-License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Private Ltd.
A-12, Second Floor, Sector -2, NOIDA -201301, India

 

  • References

  • 1 Glasser DB, Lane JM, Huvos AG, Marcove RC, Rosen G. Survival, prognosis, and therapeutic response in osteogenic sarcoma. The memorial hospital experience. Cancer 1992;69:698-708.
  • 2 Wunder JS, Paulian G, Huvos AG, Heller G, Meyers PA, Healey JH. The histological response to chemotherapy as a predictor of the oncological outcome of operative treatment of Ewing sarcoma. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1998;80:1020-33.
  • 3 Kawai A, Sugihara S, Kunisada T, Uchida Y, Inoue H. Imaging assessment of the response of bone tumors to preoperative chemotherapy. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1997;337:216-25.
  • 4 Raymond AK, Chawla SP, Carrasco CH, Ayala AG, Fanning CV, Grice B, et al. Osteosarcoma chemotherapy effect: A prognostic factor. Semin Diagn Pathol 1987;4:212-36.
  • 5 Rosen G, Caparros B, Huvos AG, Kosloff C, Nirenberg A, Cacavio A, et al. Preoperative chemotherapy for osteogenic sarcoma: Selection of postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy based on the response of the primary tumor to preoperative chemotherapy. Cancer 1982;49:1221-30.
  • 6 Huvos AG, Rosen G, Marcove RC. Primary osteogenic sarcoma: Pathologic aspect in 20 patients after treatment with chemotherapy en bloc resection, and prosthetic bone replacement. Arch Pathol Lab Med 1977;101:14-8.
  • 7 Gherlinzoni F, Picci P, Bacci G, Campanacci D. Limb sparing versus amputation in osteosarcoma. Correlation between local control, surgical margins and tumor necrosis: Istituto Rizzoli experience. Ann Oncol 1992;3(Suppl 2):S23-7.
  • 8 Picci P, Rougraff BT, Bacci G, Neff JR, Sangiorgi L, Cazzola A, et al. Prognostic significance of histopathologic response to chemotherapy in nonmetastatic Ewing′s sarcoma of the extremities. J Clin Oncol 1993;11:1763-9.
  • 9 Hendershot E, Pappo A, Malkin D, Sung L. Tumor necrosis in pediatric osteosarcoma: Impact of modern therapies. J Pediatr Oncol Nurs 2006;23:176-81.
  • 10 Shin KH, Moon SH, Suh JS, Yang WI. Tumor volume change as a predictor of chemotherapeutic response in osteosarcoma. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2000;376:200-8.
  • 11 Smith J, Heelan RT, Huvos AG, Caparros B, Rosen G, Urmacher C, et al. Radiographic changes in primary osteogenic sarcoma following intensive chemotherapy. Radiology 1982;143:355-60.
  • 12 Carrasco CH, Charnsangavej C, Raymond AK, Richli WR, Wallace S, Chawla SP, et al. Osteosarcoma: Angiographic assessment of response to preoperative chemotherapy. Radiology 1989;170:839-42.
  • 13 Welling RM, Davies AM, Pynsent PB, Carter SR, Grimer RJ. The value of computed tomographic measurements in osteosarcoma as a predictor of response to adjuvant chemotherapy. Clin Radiol 1994;49:19-23.
  • 14 Holscher HC, Bloem JL, Nooy MA, Taminieu AH, Eulderink F, Hermans J. The value of MR imaging in monitoring the effect of chemotherapy on bone sarcomas. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1990;154:763-9.
  • 15 Cheon GJ, Kim MS, Lee JA, Lee SY, Cho WH, Song WS, et al. Prediction model of chemotherapy response in osteosarcoma by 18F-FDG PET and MRI. J Nucl Med 2009;50:1435-40.
  • 16 de Baere T, Vanel D, Shapeero LG, Charpentier A, Terrier P, di Paola M. Osteosarcoma after chemotherapy: Evaluation with contrast material-enhanced subtraction MR imaging. Radiology 1992;185:587-92.
  • 17 Dyke JP, Panicek DM, Healey JH, Meyers PA, Huvos AG, Schwartz LH, et al. Osteogenic and Ewing sarcoma: Estimation of necrotic fraction during induction chemotherapy with dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging. Radiology 2003;228:271-8.
  • 18 Fletcher BD, Hanna SL, Fairclough DL, Gronemeyer SA. Pediatric musculoskeletal tumors: Use of dynamic, contrast-enhanced MR imaging to monitor response to chemotherapy. Radiology 1992;184:243-8.
  • 19 Erlemann R, Sciuk J, Bosse A, Ritter J, Kusnierz-Glaz CR, Peters PE, et al. Response of osteosarcoma and Ewing sarcoma to preoperative chemotherapy: Assessment with dynamic and static MR imaging and skeletal scintigraphy. Radiology 1990;175:791-6.
  • 20 Hayashida Y, Yakushiji T, Awai K, Katahira K, Nakayama Y, Shimomura O, et al. Monitoring therapeutic responses of primary bone tumors by diffusion-weighted image: Initial results. Eur Radiol 2006;16:2637-43.
  • 21 Abudu A, Davies AM, Pynsent PB, Mangham DC, Tilman RM, Carter SR, et al. Tumor volume as a predictor of necrosis after chemotherapy in Ewing′s sarcoma. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1999;81:317-22.
  • 22 Moon SH, Shin KH, Suh JS, Yang WI, Noh JK, Hahn SB, et al. Tumor volume change after chemotherapy as a predictive factor of disease free survival for osteosarcoma. Yonsei Med J 2005;46:119-24.
  • 23 Toms AP, White LM, Kandel R, Bleakney RR, Noseworthy M, Lee S, et al. Limitation of single slice dynamic contrast enhanced MR in pharmacokinetic modeling of bone sarcomas. Act Radiol 2009;50:512-20.
  • 24 Lee JH, Chin SY, Kim KH, Jeon DG, Cho KJ. Osteosarcoma after preoperative chemotherapy: Tissue characterization with specimen MR and the role of enhanced MR imaging. J Korean Radiol Soc 1999;40:965-73.
  • 25 Holscher HC, Bloem JL, Vanel D, Hermans J, Nooy MA, Taminiau AH, et al. Osteosarcoma: Chemotherapy-induced changes at MR imaging. Radiology 1992;182:839-44.
  • 26 Holscher HC, Bloem JL, van der Woude HJ, Hermans J, Nooy MA, Taminiau AH, et al. Can MRI predict the histopathological response in patients with osteosarcoma after the first cycle of chemotherapy? Clin Radiol 1995;50:384-90.
  • 27 Enneking WF, Spanier SS, Goodman MA. A system for the surgical staging of musculoskeletal sarcoma. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1980;153:106-20.
  • 28 Lang P, Honda G, Robert T, Vahlensieck M, Jonston JO, Rosenau W, et al. Musculoskeletal neoplasm: Perineoplastic edema versus tumor on dynamic postcontrast MR images with spatial mapping of instantaneous enhancement rates. Radiology 1995;197:831-9.
  • 29 Guo J, Reddick WE, Glass JO, Ji Q, Billups CA, Wu J, et al. Dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging as a prognostic factor in predicting event-free and overall survival in pediatric patients with osteosarcoma. Cancer 2012;118:3776-85.
  • 30 van der Woude HJ, Bloem JL, Verstraete KL, Taminiau AH, Nooy MA, Hogendoorn PC. Osteosarcoma and Ewing′s sarcoma after neoadjuvant chemotherapy: Value of dynamic MR imaging in detecting viable tumor before surgery. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1995;165:593-8.