Advertisement

European Radiology

, Volume 30, Issue 1, pp 471–481 | Cite as

Strain elastography as an early predictor of long-term prognosis in patients with locally advanced cervical cancers treated with concurrent chemoradiotherapy

  • Yan Xu
  • Lijing Zhu
  • Li Zhu
  • Huanhuan Wang
  • Tong Ru
  • Baorui Liu
  • Jian He
  • Sibo Tian
  • Zhengyang ZhouEmail author
  • Xiaofeng YangEmail author
Ultrasound
  • 51 Downloads

Abstract

Objective

To explore the value of strain elastography as an early predictor of long-term prognosis in patients with locally advanced cervical cancers treated with concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT).

Methods

Strain elastography examinations were performed on 45 patients with locally advanced cervical cancers at 3 time points: prior to CCRT, and at 1 and 2 weeks after the start of CCRT. The maximum tumor diameter (Dmax), strain ratio (SR), and their percentage changes (ΔDmax and ΔSR) were calculated to predict long-term prognosis. Based on the results of physical examinations, Papanicolaou test, and pelvic magnetic resonance imaging, we classified patients into two groups: responders (complete remission) and non-responders (sustained disease, recurrence, or death).

Results

After a median follow-up of 30 months (range, 12–36 months), 36 of 45 (80%) patients were disease free. The Dmax as well as ΔDmax at 2 weeks during CCRT was able to predict the responder outcomes, with an area-under-the-curve (AUC) of 0.733 and 0.731, respectively. Furthermore, significant differences in SR and ΔSR at 1 and 2 weeks during therapy were shown between the responder and non-responder groups (all p < 0.05), and ΔSR at 2 weeks during CCRT presented with the highest AUC (0.91), yielding 88.9% sensitivity and 88.9% specificity with a selected cutoff value.

Conclusions

Strain elastography may be useful as an early predictor of long-term outcomes after CCRT for patients with cervical cancer.

Key Points

• The D max as well as ΔD max at 2 weeks during CCRT can predict the responder outcomes.

• The elastography parameters (SR and ΔSR) exhibited predictive values of favorable response after therapy initiation.

• ΔSR at 2 weeks during CCRT held the best predictive value for the responder outcomes.

Keywords

Elastography Treatment outcome Cervical cancer Concurrent chemoradiotherapy 

Abbreviations

AUC

Area-under-the-curve

CCRT

Concurrent chemoradiotherapy

CI

Confidence interval

CR

Complete response

Dmax

Maximum long axis diameter

EBRT

External beam radiotherapy

FIGO

International federation of gynecology and obstetrics

HDR

High dose rate

ICC

Intraclass correlation coefficient

MRI

Magnetic resonance imaging

OS

Overall survival

PFS

Progression-free survival

Post T1

At 1 week during therapy

Post T2

At 2 weeks during therapy

PR

Partial response

Pre Tx

Prior to therapy

ROC

Receiver-operating characteristic

SR

Strain ratio

Notes

Funding

This study has received funding from the National Natural Science Foundation of China (ID: 81501441, 81671751), Social Development Foundation of Jiangsu Province (BE2015605), the Natural Science Foundation of Jiangsu Province (ID: BK20131281,BK20150109, BK20150102), Jiangsu Province Health and Family Planning Commission Youth Scientific Research Project (ID: Q201508), and Six Talent Peaks Project of Jiangsu Province (ID: 2015-WSN-079).

Compliance with ethical standards

Guarantor

The scientific guarantor of this publication is Zhengyang Zhou.

Conflict of interest

The authors of this manuscript declare no relationships with any companies whose products or services may be related to the subject matter of the article.

Statistics and biometry

No complex statistical methods were necessary for this paper.

Informed consent

Written informed consent was obtained from all subjects (patients) in this study.

Ethical approval

Institutional Review Board approval was obtained.

Methodology

• prospective

• diagnostic or prognostic study

• performed at one institution

References

  1. 1.
    Torre L, Bray F, Siegel R, Ferlay J, Lortet-Tieulent J, Jemal A (2015) Global cancer statistics, 2012. CA Cancer J Clin 65:87–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Vale CL, Tierney JF, Davidson SE, Drinkwater KJ, Symonds P (2010) Substantial improvement in UK cervical cancer survival with chemoradiotherapy: results of a Royal College of Radiologists’ audit. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) 22:590–601CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Vale C, Tierney J, Stewart L et al (2008) Reducing uncertainties about the effects of chemoradiotherapy for cervical cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of individual patient data from 18 randomized trials. J Clin Oncol 26:5802–5812CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Nam H, Park W, Huh SJ et al (2007) The prognostic significance of tumor volume regression during radiotherapy and concurrent chemoradiotherapy for cervical cancer using MRI. Gynecol Oncol 107:320–325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ryu HK, Baek JS, Kang WD, Kin SM (2015) The prognostic value of squamous cell carcinoma antigen for predicting tumor recurrence in cervical squamous cell carcinoma patients. Obstet Gynecol Sci 58:368–376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lee DW, Kim YT, Kim JH et al (2010) Clinical significance of tumor volume and lymph node involvement assessed by MRI in stage IIB cervical cancer patients treated with concurrent chemoradiation therapy. J Gynecol Oncol 21:18–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Yoo J, Choi JY, Moon SH et al (2012) Prognostic significance of volume-based metabolic parameters in uterine cervical cancer determined using 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography. Int J Gynecol Cancer 22:1226–1233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ushijima K, Fujiyoshi K, Kawano K et al (2013) Concurrent chemoradiotherapy with low-dose daily cisplatin for high risk uterine cervical cancer: a long-term follow-up study. J Gynecol Oncol 24:108–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Min SK, Hong BK, Seoung JY et al (2015) Tumor size and lymph node status determined by imaging are reliable factors for predicting advanced cervical cancer prognosis. Oncol Lett 9:2218–2224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Zhu L, Wang H, Zhu L et al (2017) Predictive and prognostic value of intravoxel incoherent motion (IVIM) MR imaging in patients with advanced cervical cancers undergoing concurrent chemo-radiotherapy. Sci Rep 7:11635CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Andersen EK, Hole KH, Lund KV et al (2013) Pharmacokinetic parameters derived from dynamic contrast enhanced MRI of cervical cancers predict chemoradiotherapy outcome. Radiother Oncol 107:117–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Makino H, Kato H, Furui T, Morishige K, Kanematsu M (2014) Predictive value of diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging during chemoradiotherapy for uterine cervical cancer. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 40:1098–1104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Zhu L, Zhu L, Shi H et al (2016) Evaluating early response of cervical cancer under concurrent chemo-radiotherapy by intravoxel incoherent motion MR imaging. BMC Cancer 16:79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Oh D, Lee JE, Huh SJ et al (2013) Prognostic significance of tumor response as assessed by sequential 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography/computed tomography during concurrent chemoradiation therapy for cervical cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 87:549–554CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Aigner F, Pallwein L, Schocke M et al (2011) Comparison of real-time sonoelastography with T2-weighted endorectal magnetic resonance imaging for prostate cancer detection. J Ultrasound Med 30:643–649CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Chang JM, Won JK, Lee KB, Park IA, Yi A, Moon WK (2013) Comparison of shear-wave and strain ultrasound elastography in the differentiation of benign and malignant breast lesions. AJR Am J Roentgenol 201:W347–W356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Thomas A, Kümmel S, Gemeinhardt O, Fischer T (2007) Real-time sonoelastography of the cervix: tissue elasticity of the normal and abnormal cervix. Acad Radiol 14:193–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Burnside ES, Hall TJ, Sommer AM et al (2007) Differentiating benign from malignant solid breast masses with US strain imaging. Radiology 245:401–410CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Carlsen JF, Ewertsen C, Săftoiu A, Lönn L, Nielsen MB (2014) Accuracy of visual scoring and semi-quantification of ultrasound strain elastography – a phantom study. PLoS One 9:e88699CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Havre RF, Elde E, Gilja OH et al (2008) Freehand real-time elastography: impact of scanning parameters on image quality and in vitro intra- and interobserver validations. Ultrasound Med Biol 34:1638–1650CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Onur MR, Poyraz AK, Ucak EE, Bozgeyik Z, Özercan IH, Ogur E (2012) Semiquantitative strain elastography of liver masses. J Ultrasound Med 31:1061–1067CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Yerli H, Yilmaz T, Kaskati T, Gulay H (2011) Qualitative and semiquantitative evaluations of solid breast lesions by sonoelastography. J Ultrasound Med 30:179–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Xing P, Wu L, Zhang C, Li S, Liu C, Wu C (2011) Differentiation of benign from malignant thyroid lesions: calculation of the strain ratio on thyroid sonoelastography. J Ultrasound Med 30:663–669CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Dudea SM, Botar-Jid C, Dumitriu D, Vasilescu D, Manole S, Lenghel ML (2013) Differentiating benign from malignant superficial lymph nodes with sonoelastography. Med Ultrason 15:132–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Zhang Y, Tang J, Li YM et al (2012) Differentiation of prostate cancer from benign lesions using strain index of transrectal real-time tissue elastography. Eur J Radiol 81:857–862CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Lu R, Xiao Y, Liu M, Shi D (2014) Ultrasound elastography in the differential diagnosis of benign and malignant cervical lesions. J Ultrasound Med 33:667–671CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Mabuchi S, Sasano T, Kuroda H, Takahashi R, Nakagawa S, Kimura T (2015) Real-time tissue sonoelastography for early response monitoring in cervical cancer patients treated with definitive chemoradiotherapy: preliminary results. J Med Ultrason (2001) 42:379–385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Xu Y, Zhu L, Liu B et al (2017) Strain elastography imaging for early detection and prediction of tumor response to concurrent chemo-radiotherapy in locally advanced cervical cancer: feasibility study. BMC Cancer 17:427CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Nag S, Erickson B, Thomadsen B, Orton C, Demanes JD, Petereit D (2000) The American Brachytherapy Society recommendations for high-dose-rate brachytherapy for carcinoma of the cervix. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 48:201–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Delaloye JF, Pampallona S, Coucke PA, De Grandi P (1996) Younger age as a bad prognostic factor in patients with carcinoma of the cervix. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 64:201–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Farley JH, Hickey KW, Carlson JW, Rose GS, Kost ER, Harrison TA (2003) Adenosquamous histology predicts a poor outcome for patients with advanced-stage, but not early stage cervical carcinoma. Cancer 97:2196–2202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Kim TE, Park BJ, Kwack HS, Kwon J, Kim J, Yoo S (2012) Outcomes and prognostic factors of cervical cancer after concurrent chemoradiation. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 38:1315–1320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Dueňas-González A, Orlando M, Zhou Y, Quinlivan M, Barraclough H (2012) Efficacy in high burden locally advanced cervical cancer with concurrent gemcitabine and cisplatin chemoradiotherapy plus adjuvant gemcitabine and cisplatin: prognostic and predictive factors and the impact of disease stage on outcomes from a prospective randomized phase III trial. Gynecol Oncol 126:334–340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Kim SM, Choi HS, Byun JS (2000) Overall 5-year survival rate and prognostic factors in patients with stage IB and IIA cervical cancer treated by radical hysterectomy and pelvic lymph nodedissection. Int J Gynecol Cancer 10:305–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Horn LC, Fischer U, Raptis G, Bilek K, Hentschel B (2007) Tumor size is of prognostic value in surgically treated FIGO stage II cervical cancer. Gynecol Oncol 107:310–315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Lee KC, Kim HJ, Sung K et al (2017) The predictive value of tumor size, volume, and markers during radiation therapy in patients with cervical cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer 27:123–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© European Society of Radiology 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yan Xu
    • 1
    • 2
  • Lijing Zhu
    • 3
  • Li Zhu
    • 1
  • Huanhuan Wang
    • 1
  • Tong Ru
    • 2
  • Baorui Liu
    • 3
  • Jian He
    • 1
  • Sibo Tian
    • 4
  • Zhengyang Zhou
    • 1
    Email author
  • Xiaofeng Yang
    • 4
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Radiology, Nanjing Drum Tower HospitalThe Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing University Medical SchoolNanjingChina
  2. 2.Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Nanjing Drum Tower HospitalThe Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing University Medical SchoolNanjingChina
  3. 3.The Comprehensive Cancer Centre, Nanjing Drum Tower HospitalThe Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing University Medical SchoolNanjingChina
  4. 4.Department of Radiation Oncology and Winship Cancer InstituteEmory UniversityAtlantaUSA

Personalised recommendations