Advertisement

BMC Cancer

, 19:470 | Cite as

The primary lesion apparent diffusion coefficient is a prognostic factor for locoregionally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma: a retrospective study

  • Tao-xiang Huang
  • Nian Lu
  • Shan-shan Lian
  • Hui Li
  • Shao-han Yin
  • Zhi-jun Geng
  • Chuan-miao XieEmail author
Open Access
Research article
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Surgical oncology, cancer imaging, and interventional therapeutics

Abstract

Background

To explore prognostic value of the pre-treatment primary lesion apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) in locoregionally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma (LA-NPC).

Methods

A total of 843 patients with newly diagnosed LA-NPC were enrolled from January 2011 to April 2014 and divided into two groups based on ADC values: the low-ADC group and high-ADC group. The 3-year local relapse-free survival (LRFS), distant metastasis free survival (DMFS), disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) rates between two groups were compared using Kaplan-Meier curve, and Cox regression analyses were performed to test prognostic value of the pretreatment ADC in LA-NPC.

Results

The cut-off value of the pretreatment ADC for predicting local relapse was 784.5 × 10 6 mm2/s (AUC [area under curve] = 0.604; sensitivity = 0.640; specificity = 0.574), thus patients were divided into low-ADC (< 784.5 × 10 6; n = 473) group and high-ADC (≥784.5 × 10 6; n = 370) group. The low-ADC group had significantly higher 3-year LRFS rate and DFS rate than the high-ADC group (LRFS: 96.2% vs. 91.4%, P = 0.003; DFS: 81.4% vs. 73.0%, P = 0.0056). Multivariate analysis showed that the pretreatment ADC is an independent prognostic factor for LRFS (HR, 2.04; 95% CI, 1.13–3.66; P = 0.017) and DFS (HR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.04–1.89; P = 0.024).

Conclusions

The pretreatment ADC of the primary lesion is an independent prognostic factor for LRFS and DFS in LA-NPC patients.

Keywords

Locoregionally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma Magnetic resonance imaging Apparent diffusion coefficient Prognosis 

Abbreviations

ADC

Apparent diffusion coefficient

AUC

Area under curve

CCRT

Concurrent chemoradiotherapy

CIs

Confidence intervals

CT

Computed tomography

CTV

Clinical target volume

DFS

Disease-free survival

DMFS

Distant metastasis-free survival

DWI

Diffusion-weighted imaging

EBV

Epstein-Barr virus

GTV

Gross tumour volume

HR

Hazard ratio

IC

Induction chemotherapy

IMRT

Intensity-modulated radiotherapy

LA-NPC

Locoregionally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma

LDH

Lactate dehydrogenase

LRFS

Local relapse-free survival

MRI

Magnetic resonance imaging

NCCN

National comprehensive cancer network

OS

Overall survival

PET

Positron emission tomography

PTV

Planning target volume

ROC

Receiver operating characteristic

UICC/AJCC

International Union against Cancer/American Joint Committee on Cancer

Background

Nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) is endemic in South-Eastern Asia while unusual in western countries, the age-standardized incidence rate was 20–50 per 100,000 males in South China [1, 2]. Due to its high sensitivity to radiotherapy and the combination of chemotherapy, the 5-year overall survival rate in patients with stage I-II NPC was over 90%, however, clinical outcomes of patients with stage III-IVA disease are still unsatisfactory because of distant metastasis and local relapse [3, 4]. Retreatment for local relapse is challenging due to fatal complications and unsatisfactory survival, over 50% of treatment-related injuries following re-irradiation were reported [5]. Thus, it is significant to find the high-risk patients for local failure before treatment so as to take more aggressive therapy and administrate shorter follow-up.

Apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) is obtained from diffusion weighted magnetic resonance imaging (MRI-DWI) after processing, and it is a functional parameter that mainly reflects the Brownian motion of water molecules. Calculating the ADC value of the tumor can quantitatively reflect its intrinsic biological features [6]. To date, the pretreatment ADC value of tumor lesion was reported to be helpful in differential diagnosis [7, 8], tumor staging [9, 10], predicting treatment response of malignancies [11, 12, 13, 14, 15]. With regard to NPC, high pretreatment ADC of the primary lesion has been shown to predict poor outcomes and poor response to radio-sensitivity [16, 17]. However, these studies obtained relatively small sample size, resulting in inconclusive results. Moreover, they did not specially focus on local failure. Given the challenging treatment strategy and poor outcome of local failure, it’s worth evaluating the role of the pretreatment ADC in predicting local failure. Therefore, we did this retrospective study to investigate this issue in order to categorize patients and administrate individualized treatment among locoregionally advanced NPC (LA-NPC) patients.

Methods

Study patients

The Clinical Research Ethics Committee of Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center approved the research and the written informed consent was waived. Patients were included in this study if they meet the following inclusion criteria: (i) karnofsky performance score (KPS) ≥ 70; (ii) newly diagnosed stage III-IVA (except T3–4 N0) NPC [18]; (iii) receiving intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT); (iv) the interval between MRI examination and the beginning of treatment was less than 28 days; (v) all patients underwent examination by the same MRI machine (Trio Tim; Siemens, Erlangen Germany) including diffusion-weighted images (DWI) (b values: 0, 1000 s/ mm2). Accordingly, a total of 1050 patients between April 2009 and July 2014 were included. In the following analysis, 207 patients were excluded because of unqualified images and difficulties in drawing ROI (region of interest), finally 843 patients were enrolled in this study, which were showed specifically in Fig. 1.
Fig. 1

Flowchart of patient inclusion. Abbreviations: NPC = nasopharyngeal carcinoma; CCRT = concurrent chemoradiotherapy; IC = induction chemotherapy; IMRT = intensity-modulated radiotherapy; MRI = magnetic resonance imaging; DWI = diffusion-weighted imaging; ROI = region of interest

Clinical staging workup

All patients underwent complete evaluations prior to treatment which consisted of medical history, physical examination, blood test, serum biochemical test, nasopharyngeal fiberscope, MRI of nasopharynx and neck, chest X-ray, abdominal sonography and bone scan. A whole-body 18-fluoro-2-deoxy-glucose (18F-FDG) positron emission tomography with computed tomography (PET/CT) may also be delivered for some patients if necessary.

All patients were regrouped by the 8th edition of the International Union against Cancer/American Joint Committee on Cancer (UICC/AJCC) manual. All imaging data were reviewed by two experienced radiologists (LH, Y-SH) employed at our center to mitigate the heterogeneity, and disagreements were solved by consensus.

Imaging protocol

MRI examination prior to treatment, from the suprasellar cistern to the collarbone using the same 3-Tesla MRI machine (Trio Tim; Siemens, Erlangen Germany), was done for every patient. Before enhancement, the technician obtained the axial, coronal and sagittal T1-weighted images, the axial T2-weighted MR images and diffusion-weighted images. After the injection of contrast agents, T1-weighted images in axial and sagittal plane and T1-weighted fat-suppressed images in coronal planes were obtained sequentially, all parameters were described in detail (Table 1).
Table 1

Parameters of DWI, T1-weighted Imaging and T2-weighted Imaging

Parameter

DWI

T1-weighted Imaging

T2-weighted Imaging

Repetition time (msec)

5600

600

6000

Echo time (msec)

93

8.8

89

B Value

0 and 1000

/

/

Field of view (mm2)

240 (220–260)

240 (220–260)

240 (220–260)

Scan matrix

192 × 192

384 × 307

384 × 307

Section thickness (mm)

10

5

5

Abbreviations: DWI = diffusion weighted imaging

The ADC value was quantified by calculating the signal intensity (SI) of each pixel of the tumor area using the following eq. SI = SI0e-bD, where SI means the measurement of signal intensity, b means b value, D means ADC, SI0 means SI when b-value is 0. Choosing 1000 s/mm2 as a b-value to calculate the D value in this study and each patient owned a corresponding ADC map after processing. Mean ADC value of lesion was obtained by drawing the two-dimensional region of interest (ROI) to cover as much as the primary lesion in the slice with largest diameter, discarding the necrotic and cystic part. The consensus criteria of ROI drawing was set first by two experienced radiologists (LH, Y-SH) with more than 10-year experience in NPC imaging diagnosis, and they conducted the drawing process without knowing the clinical outcomes. Figure 2 showed two cases with corresponding ADC maps.
Fig. 2

Representative MR images of drawing process:(a-c) The axial T2-weighted image, axial enhanced T1 image, axial ADC image of a middle-aged patient, the patient experienced local failure 39.5 months after treatment; (d-f:) The axial T2-weighted image, axial enhanced T1 image, axial ADC image of another middle-aged patient, the patient experienced local failure 38.8 months after treatment. Abbreviations: ADC = apparent diffusion coefficient.

Treatment and follow up

All of the 843 patients underwent IMRT using the simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) technique. The prescribed doses were 66–72 Gy, 64–70 Gy, 60–63 Gy, 50–56 Gy to the planning target volume (PTV) of nasopharyngeal gross tumor volume (GTV), the PTV of GTV of metastatic lymph nodes, the PTV of high-risk clinical target volume, the PTV of low-risk clinical target volume, respectively. Moreover, 40.6% (343/843) of patients received induction chemotherapy (IC) plus concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT), while 59.3% (59.3%) of patients received CCRT alone. IC consist of cisplatin-based regimens delivered every three weeks for 2–3 cycles. Concurrent chemotherapy was weekly or tri-weekly cisplatin.

During the first two years after treatment, followed-up was conducted every three months, then every 6 months in years 3–5 and thereafter once a year. The standard follow-up includes complete medical history, physical examination and MRI of the neck and nasopharynx, chest CT and abdominal sonography. All local recurrence and distant metastasis was determined by biopsy results or highly probable imaging finding on CT, MRI or PET-CT.

Statistical analysis

In this study, the first endpoint was local relapse-free survival (LRFS) defined as the time interval between pathology diagnosis and first local recurrence. Other endpoints included distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS, time interval from diagnosis to first distant metastasis), disease-free survival (DFS, time interval from diagnosis to first disease progression) and overall survival (OS, time interval from diagnosis to death due to any cause or patient censoring).

For predicting local relapse, receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curve were done to determine the cut-off value (the maximal conditional Youden score) of the pretreatment ADC [19]. Based on this value, the patients were divided into low-ADC group and high-ADC group. Categorical or continuous variables (age, gender, drinking, smoking, family history of cancer, serum Epstein-Barr virus load, serum lactate dehydrogenase [LDH], T classification, N classification, clinical stage, treatment methods) between high-risk and low-risk groups were compared using the Chi-square test or non-parametric test.

Survival analysis including LRFS, DMFS, DFS and OS was done using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared by the log-rank test. In order to test the independent prognostic value of the pretreatment ADC, the host factors (age, gender, drinking, smoking, family history of cancer), biochemical results (pretreatment serum EBV load, serum LDH), tumor stage (T classification, N classification, overall stage) and treatment methods (CCRT or IC + CCRT) were included into multivariate analysis using Cox proportional hazards model, and hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were obtained. A two-sided P value that less than 0.05 was considered significant. SPSS software (version 21.0; SPSS, Chicago, Ill) was used for all analyses.

Results

Patient baseline characteristics

A total of 843 patients were enrolled in this study, the male (n = 609) to female (n = 234) ratio is 2.60:1. Median age for the whole group was 44 years (range, 9–74 years). Moreover, most (96.7%) of patients were histo-pathologically confirmed undifferentiated non-keratinizing carcinoma. Additionally, 57.7% (487/843) of patients had stage III disease while 42.2% (356/843) had stage IVA disease. In total, 343 (40.6%) patients received IC + CCRT and 500 (59.4%) received CCRT alone (Table 2).
Table 2

Baseline characteristics of 843 patients with LA-NPC

 

Low-ADC group

High-ADC group

P-value a

Total

473

370

 

Age(years)

  

0.732

Median(range)

45(9–74)

44 (12–72)

 

< 44

236 (49.9%)

189 (51.1%)

 

≥44

237 (50.1%)

181 (48.9%)

 

Gender

  

0.039

Male

355 (75.1%)

254 (68.6%)

 

Female

118 (24.9%)

116 (31.4%)

 

EBV-DNA

  

0.960

Median(range)

8.0 (0–5150.0)

6.0 (0–2810.0)

 

< 40.0

351 (74.2%)

274 (74.1%)

 

≥40.0

122 (25.8%)

96 (25.9%)

 

LDH (U/L)

  

0.189

Median (range)

183.2 (1.7–396.5)

178.8 (108.0–753.0)

 

< 245.0

431 (91.1%)

327 (88.4%)

 

≥245.0

42 (8.9%)

43 (11.6%)

 

WHO histologic type

  

0.047

KSCC

2 (0.4%)

4 (1.1%)

 

DNKC

7 (1.5%)

14 (3.8%)

 

UNKC

464 (98.1%)

352 (95.1%)

 

Smoking

  

0.596

No

292 (61.7%)

235 (63.5%)

 

Yes

181 (38.3%)

135 (36.5%)

 

Drinking

  

0.593

No

395 (83.5%)

314 (84.9%)

 

Yes

78 (16.5%)

56 (15.1%)

 

Family history of cancer

 

0.966

No

356 (75.3%)

278 (75.1%)

 

Yes

117 (24.7%)

92 (24.9%)

 

T classification b

  

0.924

T1–2

65 (13.7%)

50 (13.5%)

 

T3–4

408 (86.3%)

320 (86.5%)

 

N classification b

  

0.359

N0–1

263 (55.6%)

194 (52.4%)

 

N2–3

210 (44.4%)

176 (47.6%)

 

Overall stageb

  

0.550

III

269 (56.9%)

218 (58.9%)

 

IVA

204 (43.1%)

152 (41.1%)

 

Treatment

  

0.529

IC + CCRT

188 (39.7%)

155 (41.9%)

 

CCRT

285 (60.3%)

215 (58.1%)

 

Abbreviation: LA-NPC locoregionally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma, EBV-DNA pretreatment serum Epstein-Barr virus load, ADC apparent diffusion coefficient, LDH lactate dehydrogenase, IC induction chemotherapy, CCRT concurrent chemoradiotherapy, KSCK keratinizing squamous cell carcinoma, DNKC differentiated non-keratinizing carcinoma, UNC undifferentiated non-keratinizing carcinoma

aP values were calculated by Chi-square test.

bAccording to the 8th edition of UICC/AJCC staging system

Cut-off value of ADC

Of all the patients, the median of the pretreatment ADC was 771.0 × 10− 6 mm2/s (range, 370.0 to 1051.0× 10− 6 mm2/s). ROC analysis identified the cut-off value of the pretreatment ADC for predicting local relapse as 784.5 × 10 6 mm2/s (maximal Youden score = 0.214; sensitivity = 0.640; specificity = 0.574; AUC [area under the ROC] = 0.604 [95%CI, 0.533–0.676]). Accordingly, patients were divided into low-ADC group (< 784.5 × 10 6 mm2/s) (n = 473) and high-ADC group (≥ 784.5 × 10 6 mm2/s) (n = 370) based on the value. The demographics and clinical characteristics were described in Table 1 and were well balanced.

Failure patterns

Up to the last visit, the median follow-up duration was 54.9 months (range, 3.3–83.6 months). In total, 18 (3.8%) patients in low-ADC group and 32 (8.6%) patients in high-ADC group experienced local relapse, 64 (13.5%) patients in low-ADC group and 60 (16.2%) patients in high-ADC group suffered distant metastasis. Accordingly, 88 (18.6%) and 100 (27.0%) patients in low-ADC and high-ADC groups developed treatment failure. Consequently, 53 (11.2%) patients in low-ADC and 57 (15.4%) patients in high-ADC group died.

Survival analysis

The low-ADC group had significantly higher 3-year LRFS rate and DFS rate than the high-ADC group (LRFS: 96.2% vs.91.4%, P = 0.003; DFS: 81.4% vs. 73.0%, P = 0.0056). while 3-year DMFS rate and OS rate were found no significant difference between groups (DMFS: 86.5% vs. 83.8%, P = 0.28; OS: 88.8% vs. 84.6% P = 0.11) (Figure 3). After adjusting for various factors, multivariate analysis showed that the pretreatment ADC is an independent prognostic factor for LRFS (HR, 2.04; 95% CI, 1.13–3.66; P = 0.017) and DFS (HR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.04–1.89; P = 0.024) (Table 3). In addition , Propensity score matching identified 356 well-matched pairs, survival analysis showed consistent results (Additional file 1: Figure S1 and Additional file 2: Table S1).
Table 3

Multivariate analysis of prognostic factors in the 843 patients with LA-NPC

Endpoints

Variable

HR (95% CI)

P value a

LRFS

T classification b

5.919 (1.386–25.27)

0.016

N classification b

1.836 (1.028–3.280)

0.040

Mean ADC

2.039 (1.135–3.664)

0.017

Treatment

0.551 (0.307–0.989)

0.046

OS

N classification b

1.689 (1.144–2.493)

0.008

LDH

2.204 (1.364–3.560)

0.001

DFS

N classification b

1.626 (1.161–2.278)

0.004

LDH

2.13 (1.447–3.146)

< 0.001

Mean ADC

1.409 (1.045–1.899)

0.024

DMFS

EBV-DNA

1.701 (1.587–2.161)

0.006

Gender (Male)

0.519 (0.324–0.830)

0.006

LDH

2.624 (1.709–4.029)

< 0.001

Abbreviations: Mean ADC mean value of the primary lesion apparent diffusion coefficient, EBV-DNA pretreatment serum Epstein-Barr virus load, CI confidence interval, HR hazard ratio, LA-NPC locoregionally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma, LRFS Local relapse-free survival, OS Overall survival, DFS Disease-free survival, DMFS Distant metastasis-free survival

aP values were calculated using an adjusted Cox proportional hazards model including the following factors: the host factors (age, gender, drinking, smoking, family history of cancer), biochemical results (pretreatment serum EBV load, serum LDH), tumor stage (T category, N category, overall stage) and treatment method (CCRT or IC + CCRT)

bAccording to the 8th edition of UICC/AJCC staging syst

Fig. 3

Kaplan-Meier (a) local relapse-free survival (LRFS), (b) disease-free survival (DFS), (c) distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS), (d) overall survival (OS) curves for the selected 843 patients with stage III-IVA nasopharyngeal carcinoma (except T3–4 N0) between low-ADC group and high-ADC group; low-ADC group = patients with a primary lesion ADC value prior to treatment < 0.784.5 × 10–3 mm2/s; high-ADC group = patients with a primary lesion ADC value prior to treatment ≥0.784.5 × 10–3 mm2/s

Discussion

Our Current study identified the pretreatment ADC of the primary lesion as an independent prognostic factor for patients with LA-NPC that patients with high-ADC achieved significantly worse 3-year LRFS rate and DFS rate compared with patients with low-ADC, indicating that the pretreatment ADC could act as a useful prognostication for future management of LA-NPC.

Nowadays, treatment strategy for NPC is decided mainly based on clinical TNM stage, which only takes the anatomical change into consideration. Based on this standard reference, the 5-year OS rates were 60–85% for patients with stage III–IVA disease and far from satisfaction [3, 20]. Therefore, it is essential to find out the subgroup of patients who achieved poor treatment response. MR-DWI is an non-invasive assessment of the intrinsic biological features of tissues including microvasculature, cell density, membrane permeability and so on [6]. In many malignancies, the ADC has been proved to be valuable for differential diagnosis, prediction of lymph node metastasis and prognostic evaluation [21, 22, 23, 24, 25]. Several studies have reported that high ADC value before treatment correlated with poor treatment responses and survival outcomes in brain tumor, bladder cancer and head and neck cancers [26, 27]. On the contrary, another research studied patients with renal cancer and found that low ADC value predicted higher rate of metastasis after surgery [28], suggesting that ADC can serve as a useful pre-treatment indicator for many malignancies. Similarly, our study also validate that pre-treatment ADC could serve as an important prognostication in NPC.

The underlying mechanism for our finding may be that high pre-treatment ADC level usually predicts more invasive biological features of tumor. Tumor lesions with high ADC may have more invisible micronecrosis and inflammation, suggesting that hypoxia should exist [29] and therefore results in lower radio-sensitivity [30, 31]. Moreover, more micronecrosis and hypoxia indicated that tumor is inclined to grow fast, leading to higher invasive potential of malignant cells and higher local relapse [32, 33]. With regard to our findings that DMFS did not significantly differ between the high-ADC and low-ADC groups, the major reason may be that distant metastasis had a stronger association with lymph node metastasis than local lesion relapse [4].

Several previous researches regarding to NPC reported controversial conclusions. Razek et al. studied 30 patients with NPC and found that low pre-treatment ADC was associated with larger tumor size and higher rate of lymph node metastasis; however, all patients enrolled in that study were from non-endemic area and the pathological type distribution is different from that in our research [34]. Chen et al. recruited 31 patients with stage III-IV disease and reported that patients with high pretreatment ADC values and large ADC increase early after neoadjuvant chemotherapy were likely to respond better to chemoradiotherapy. Notably, both of Chen’s and Razek’s studies had small sample size, and didn’t investigated the relationship between pretreatment ADC and long-term survival [35]. Consistent with our findings, Zhang et al. also found that high pretreatment ADC predict higher local failure rate [16]. Compared with that study, our research included more patients (834 vs. 541) and specially focus on local relapse. Moreover, we only focus on the LA-NPC rather than all stage patients. Thus our research had a larger sample size and particularly focus on the LA-NPC subgroup that has higher rate of local relapse. Finally, we included biochemical and treatment factors into multivariate analysis, making our results more conclusive.

However, there were still some limitations in our study. First, it was a retrospective study. Although we had set up strict inclusion criteria and applied multivariate analysis to establish the significant factors, potential bias related to the nature of retrospective study could not be avoided totally. Second, there were no standard scanning parameters for NPC patients. Different types of MR machine and different b values selection will influence the calculation of the pretreatment ADC. Third, it was difficult to draw region of interest (ROI) for small lesions, and consensus had not met yet whether to draw several small circles of ROI or draw a big ROI covering the whole lesion. Furthermore, the AUC of pretreatment ADC was 0.604, which was not enough to be used in treatment strategy decision [19].

Conclusion

In summary, the pretreatment ADC is an independent prognostic factor for LRFS and DFS in LA-NPC patients, which might be used to select patients at high risk of local failure and therefore administrate intense treatment. More researches combining the pretreatment ADC, TNM stage and other factors or using radiomics or convolutional neural network (CNN) based on ADC images are warranted to be done to increase predictive or prognostic efficacy in the future.

Notes

Acknowledgements

All of work and contribution for this research were listed in the authorship, and no extra acknowledgements

Funding

No funding was received.

Availability of data and materials

Our raw data set contains comprehensive and detailed basic information of patents, which was backed up concretely and critically in the research department of our institution (Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center). The datasets during or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request, except private information of participants.

Authors’ contributions

T-X H & N L, in charge of design of the work, analysis, and wrote the article. S-S L, helped with acquisition and analysis of the data. H L & S-H Y, Made the ROI drawing consensus and conducted the drawing process. Z-J G, helped with acquisition. C-M X, the Corresponding author, was in charge of guidance of the design and analysis the whole research. There was no change for the authorship and their order compared to the earlier version. The manuscript was wrote by the author mentioned above without any help of other editorial services. All aouthors read and approved the final manuscript.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The Clinical Research Ethics Committee of Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center approved the research and the written informed consent was waived because this was a retrospective and observational study.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

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, there is no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary material

12885_2019_5684_MOESM1_ESM.tif (2.6 mb)
Additional file 1: Figure S1. Kaplan-Meier (A) local relapse-free survival (LRFS), (B) disease-free survival (DFS), (C) distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS), (D) overall survival (OS) curves for the 356 pairs identified by propensity score matching; low-ADC group= patients with a primary lesion ADC value prior to treatment < 0.784.5 × 10−3 mm2/s (n=356); high-ADC group = patients with a primary lesion ADC value prior to treatment ≥ 0.784.5 × 10−3 mm2/s (n=356). (TIF 2663 kb)
12885_2019_5684_MOESM2_ESM.docx (20 kb)
Additional file 2: Table S1. Baseline characteristics of propensity score matched 356 pairs patients with LA-NPC. Abbreviations: Mean ADC = mean value of the primary lesion apparent diffusion coefficient; EBV-DNA = pretreatment serum Epstein-Barr virus load; CI = confidence interval; HR = hazard ratio; LA-NPC = locoregionally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma; LRFS = Local relapse-free survival; OS = Overall survival; DFS = Disease-free survival; DMFS = Distant metastasis-free survival. a P values were calculated using an adjusted Cox proportional hazards model including the following factors: the host factors (age, gender, drinking, smoking, family history of cancer), biochemical results (pretreatment serum EBV load, serum LDH), tumor stage (T category, N category, overall stage) and treatment method (CCRT or IC+CCRT). b According to the 8th edition of UICC/AJCC staging system. (DOCX 20 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Torre L, Bray F, Siegel R, Ferlay J, Lortet-Tieulent J, Jemal A. Global cancer statistics, 2012. CA Cancer J Clin. 2015;65(2):87–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Zhang L, Li Y, Xie S, Ling W, Chen S, Liu Q, Huang Q, Cao S. Incidence trend of nasopharyngeal carcinoma from 1987 to 2011 in Sihui County, Guangdong Province, South China: an age-period-cohort analysis. Chin J Cancer. 2015;34(8):350–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lee A, Ng W, Chan L, Chan O, Hung W, Chan C, Cheng P, Sze H, Lam T, Yau T. The strength/weakness of the AJCC/UICC staging system (7th edition) for nasopharyngeal cancer and suggestions for future improvement. Oral Oncol. 2012;48(10):1007–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sun X, Su S, Chen C, Han F, Zhao C, Xiao W, Deng X, Huang S, Lin C, Lu T. Long-term outcomes of intensity-modulated radiotherapy for 868 patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma: an analysis of survival and treatment toxicities. Radiother Oncol. 2014;110(3):398–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Tian Y, Tian Y, Zeng L, Liu S, Guan Y, Lu T, Han F. Prognostic model for survival of local recurrent nasopharyngeal carcinoma with intensity-modulated radiotherapy. Br J Cancer. 2014;110(2):297–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rowley H, Grant P, Roberts T. Diffusion MR imaging. Theory and applications. Neuroimaging Clin N Am. 1999;9(2):343–61.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cavaliere M, Di Lullo AM: Cholesteatoma vs granulation tissue: a differential diagnosis by DWI-MRI apparent diffusion coefficient. 2018, 275(9):2237–2243.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Wang YZ, Deng Y, Li X, Lei Y, Liang C, Liu Z. Use of diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging to distinguish between lung cancer and focal inflammatory lesions: a comparison of intravoxel incoherent motion derived parameters and apparent diffusion coefficient. Technol Cancer Res Treat. 2016;57(11):1310–7.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Luo N, Su D, Jin G, Liu L, Zhu X, Xie D, Liu Y. Apparent diffusion coefficient ratio between axillary lymph node with primary tumor to detect nodal metastasis in breast cancer patients. Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI 2013;38(4):824–28.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Promsorn J, Soontrapa W, Somsap K, Chamadol N, Limpawattana P, Harisinghani M. Evaluation of the diagnostic performance of apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values on diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (DWI) in differentiating between benign and metastatic lymph nodes in cases of cholangiocarcinoma. Abdom Radiol (New York). 2019;44(2):473–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Koh DM, Scurr E, Collins D, Kanber B, Norman A, Leach MO, Husband JE. Predicting response of colorectal hepatic metastasis: value of pretreatment apparent diffusion coefficients. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2007;188(4):1001–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Henderson DR, de Souza NM, Thomas K, Riches SF, Morgan VA, Sohaib SA, Dearnaley DP, Parker CC, van As NJ. Nine-year follow-up for a study of diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging in a prospective prostate Cancer active surveillance cohort. Eur Urol. 2016;69(6):1028–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dzik-Jurasz A, Domenig C, George M, Wolber J, Padhani A, Brown G, Doran S. Diffusion MRI for prediction of response of rectal cancer to chemoradiation. Lancet (London, England). 2002;360(9329):307–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Park SH, Moon WK, Cho N, Song IC, Chang JM, Park IA, Han W, Noh DY. Diffusion-weighted MR imaging: pretreatment prediction of response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with breast cancer. Radiology. 2010;257(1):56–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Razek AA. Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging of head and neck. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2010;34(6):808–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Zhang Y, Liu X, Zhang Y, Li WF, Chen L, Mao YP, Shen JX, Zhang F, Peng H, Liu Q, et al. Prognostic value of the primary lesion apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) in nasopharyngeal carcinoma: a retrospective study of 541 cases. Sci Rep. 2015;5:12242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hong J, Yao Y, Zhang Y, Tang T, Zhang H, Bao D, Chen Y, Pan J. Value of magnetic resonance diffusion-weighted imaging for the prediction of radiosensitivity in nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Otolaryngol-Head Neck Surg. 2013;149(5):707–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Tang LL, Chen YP, Mao YP, Wang ZX, Guo R, Chen L, Tian L, Lin AH, Li L, Sun Y, et al. Validation of the 8th edition of the UICC/AJCC staging system for nasopharyngeal carcinoma from endemic areas in the intensity-modulated radiotherapy era. J Natl Compr Cancer Netw. 2017;15(7):913–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hanley JA, McNeil BJ. The meaning and use of the area under a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. Radiology. 1982;143(1):29–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Chen L, Mao YP, Xie FY, Liu LZ, Sun Y, Tian L, Tang LL, Lin AH, Li L, Ma J. The seventh edition of the UICC/AJCC staging system for nasopharyngeal carcinoma is prognostically useful for patients treated with intensity-modulated radiotherapy from an endemic area in China. Radiother Oncol. 2012;104(3):331–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hatakenaka M, Shioyama Y, Nakamura K, Yabuuchi H, Matsuo Y, Sunami S, Kamitani T, Yoshiura T, Nakashima T, Nishikawa K, et al. Apparent diffusion coefficient calculated with relatively high b-values correlates with local failure of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma treated with radiotherapy. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2011;32(10):1904–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Cheng J, Wang Y, Deng J, McCarthy RJ, Wang G, Wang H, Ye Y. Discrimination of metastatic lymph nodes in patients with gastric carcinoma using diffusion-weighted imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2013;37(6):1436–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lim HK, Lee JH, Baek HJ, Kim N, Lee H, Park JW, Kim SY, Cho KJ, Baek JH. Is diffusion-weighted MRI useful for differentiation of small non-necrotic cervical lymph nodes in patients with head and neck malignancies? Korean J Radiol. 2014;15(6):810–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Liu Y, Liu H, Bai X, Ye Z, Sun H, Bai R, Wang D. Differentiation of metastatic from non-metastatic lymph nodes in patients with uterine cervical cancer using diffusion-weighted imaging. Gynecol Oncol. 2011;122(1):19–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Zhang SX, Jia QJ, Zhang ZP, Liang CH, Chen WB, Qiu QH, Li H. Intravoxel incoherent motion MRI: emerging applications for nasopharyngeal carcinoma at the primary site. Eur Radiol. 2014;24(8):1998–2004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Mardor Y, Roth Y, Ochershvilli A, Spiegelmann R, Tichler T, Daniels D, Maier SE, Nissim O, Ram Z, Baram J, et al. Pretreatment prediction of brain tumors' response to radiation therapy using high b-value diffusion-weighted MRI. Neoplasia (New York, NY). 2004;6(2):136–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Yoshida S, Koga F, Kobayashi S, Ishii C, Tanaka H, Tanaka H, Komai Y, Saito K, Masuda H, Fujii Y, et al. Role of diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging in predicting sensitivity to chemoradiotherapy in muscle-invasive bladder cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012;83(1):e21–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Yoshida S, Kobayashi S, Koga F, Ishioka J, Ishii C, Tanaka H, Nakanishi Y, Matsuoka Y, Numao N, Saito K, et al. Apparent diffusion coefficient as a prognostic biomarker of upper urinary tract cancer: a preliminary report. Eur Radiol. 2013;23(8):2206–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Eltzschig HK, Carmeliet P: Hypoxia and inflammation. The New England journal of medicine 2011;364(7):656–65.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Brizel DM, Sibley GS, Prosnitz LR, Scher RL, Dewhirst MW. Tumor hypoxia adversely affects the prognosis of carcinoma of the head and neck. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1997;38(2):285–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Nordsmark M, Overgaard J. Tumor hypoxia is independent of hemoglobin and prognostic for loco-regional tumor control after primary radiotherapy in advanced head and neck cancer. Acta Oncol (Stockholm, Sweden). 2004;43(4):396–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Sun Y, Li W-F, Chen N-Y, Zhang N, Hu G-Q, Xie F-Y, Sun Y, Chen X-Z, Li J-G, Zhu X-D, et al. Induction chemotherapy plus concurrent chemoradiotherapy versus concurrent chemoradiotherapy alone in locoregionally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma: a phase 3, multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol. 2016;17(11):1509–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Chan AT, Hsu MM, Goh BC, Hui EP, Liu TW, Millward MJ, Hong RL, Whang-Peng J, Ma BB, To KF, et al. Multicenter, phase II study of cetuximab in combination with carboplatin in patients with recurrent or metastatic nasopharyngeal carcinoma. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23(15):3568–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Abdel Razek AA, Kamal E. Nasopharyngeal carcinoma: correlation of apparent diffusion coefficient value with prognostic parameters. Radiol Med. 2013;118(4):534–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Chen Y, Liu X, Zheng D, Xu L, Hong L, Xu Y, Pan J. Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging for early response assessment of chemoradiotherapy in patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Magn Reson Imaging. 2014;32(6):630–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s). 2019

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tao-xiang Huang
    • 1
    • 2
  • Nian Lu
    • 1
  • Shan-shan Lian
    • 1
  • Hui Li
    • 1
  • Shao-han Yin
    • 1
  • Zhi-jun Geng
    • 1
  • Chuan-miao Xie
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of RadiologySun Yat-sen University Cancer Center; State Key Laboratory of Oncology in Southern ChinaGuangzhouPeople’s Republic of China
  2. 2.Department of Radiologythe Third Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University (SYSU)GuangzhouPeople’s Republic of China

Personalised recommendations