nach oben

06.12.2024 | Comment

ZOOMit diffusion kurtosis imaging combined with diffusion weighted imaging for the assessment of microsatellite instability in endometrial cancer

verfasst von: Fang Wang, Yafei Wang, Chenjiao Ran, Jing Liang, Lisha Qi, Chen Zhang, Zhaoxiang Ye

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Purpose

Detecting microsatellite instability (MSI) plays a key role in the management of endometrial cancer (EC), as it is a critical predictive biomarker for Lynch syndrome or immunotherapy response. A pressing need exists for cost-efficient, broadly accessible tools to aid patient for universal testing. Herein, we investigate the value of ZOOMit diffusion kurtosis imaging (DKI) and diffusion weighted imaging (DWI) based on preoperative pelvic magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) images in assessing MSI in EC.

Methods

Preoperative MRI examination including ZOOMit DKI and DWI of 81 EC patients were retrospectively analyzed. The apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC), mean kurtosis (MK), mean diffusivity (MD) and the largest tumor size based on MRI images, as well as patients’ clinicopathological features were compared and analyzed according to different microsatellite statuses.

Results

Of the 81 patients, 59 (72.8%) who were microsatellite stability (MSS) and 22 (27.2%) who were MSI. Interobserver agreement for the quantitative parameter measurements was excellent (ICC 0.78–0.98). The ADC and MD values were significantly lower, while Ki-67 proliferation level and MK values were significantly higher in the MSI group compared to those of the MSS group. The parameters of MD and MK were independent predictors for determining MSI, and their combination showed better diagnostic efficacy with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) of 0.860 (95% confidence interval, 0.765, 0.927), although there was no significant difference compared to each individual parameter.

Conclusion

The microstructural heterogeneity assessment of ZOOMit DKI allowed for characterizing MSI status in EC. Within the current universal MSI testing paradigm, DKI may provide added value as a potential noninvasive imaging biomarker for preoperative assessment of MSI tumors, thereby facilitating clinical decision-making.

Graphical abstract

Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL, et al. Global Cancer Statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN Estimates of Incidence and Mortality Worldwide for 36 Cancers in 185 Countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2021; 71(3):209–49. https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21660.CrossRefPubMed

Siegel RL, Miller KD, Wagle NS, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2023. CA Cancer J Clin. 2023; 73(1):17–48. https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21763.

Luchini C, Bibeau F, Ligtenberg MJL, et al. ESMO recommendations on microsatellite instability testing for immunotherapy in cancer, and its relationship with PD-1/PD-L1 expression and tumour mutational burden: a systematic review-based approach. Ann Oncol. 2019; 30(8):1232–43. https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdz116.CrossRefPubMed

Akagi K, Oki E, Taniguchi H, et al. The real-world data on microsatellite instability status in various unresectable or metastatic solid tumors. Cancer Sci. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1111/cas.14804.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Riedinger CJ, Esnakula A, Haight PJ, et al. Characterization of mismatch-repair/microsatellite instability-discordant endometrial cancers. Cancer. 2024; 130(3):385–99. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.35030.CrossRefPubMed

Makker V, Colombo N, Casado Herráez A, et al. Lenvatinib plus Pembrolizumab for Advanced Endometrial Cancer. N Engl J Med. 2022; 386(5):437–48. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa2108330.CrossRefPubMed

Xiao JP, Wang JS, Zhao YY, Du J, Wang YZ. Microsatellite instability as a marker of prognosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of endometrioid endometrial cancer survival data. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2023; 307(2):573–82. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-022-06636-8.CrossRefPubMed

Kommoss S, McConechy MK, Kommoss F, et al. Final validation of the ProMisE molecular classifier for endometrial carcinoma in a large population-based case series. Ann Oncol. 2018; 29(5):1180–8. https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdy058.CrossRefPubMed

Le Bihan D. Apparent diffusion coefficient and beyond: what diffusion MR imaging can tell us about tissue structure. Radiology. 2013; 268(2):318–22. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.13130420.CrossRefPubMed

10.

Jensen JH, Helpern JA, Ramani A, Lu H, Kaczynski K. Diffusional kurtosis imaging: the quantification of non-gaussian water diffusion by means of magnetic resonance imaging. Magn Reson Med. 2005; 53(6):1432–40. https://doi.org/10.1002/mrm.20508.CrossRefPubMed

11.

Rosenkrantz AB, Padhani AR, Chenevert TL, et al. Body diffusion kurtosis imaging: Basic principles, applications, and considerations for clinical practice. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2015; 42(5):1190–202. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.24985.CrossRefPubMed

12.

Haopeng P, Xuefei D, Yan R, et al. Diffusion kurtosis imaging differs between primary central nervous system lymphoma and high-grade glioma and is correlated with the diverse nuclear-to-cytoplasmic ratio: a histopathologic, biopsy-based study. Eur Radiol. 2020; 30(4):2125–37. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-019-06544-7.CrossRefPubMed

13.

Li HJ, Cao K, Li XT, et al. A comparative study of mono-exponential and advanced diffusion-weighted imaging in differentiating stage IA endometrial carcinoma from benign endometrial lesions. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. 2024; 150(3):141. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00432-024-05668-8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

14.

Yamada I, Sakamoto J, Kobayashi D, et al. Diffusion kurtosis imaging of endometrial carcinoma: Correlation with histopathological findings. Magn Reson Imaging. 2019; 57:337–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mri.2018.12.009.CrossRefPubMed

15.

Meng N, Fang T, Feng P, et al. Amide Proton Transfer-Weighted Imaging and Multiple Models Diffusion-Weighted Imaging Facilitates Preoperative Risk Stratification of Early-Stage Endometrial Carcinoma. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2021; 54(4):1200–11. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.27684.CrossRefPubMed

16.

Song Q, Dong W, Tian S, et al. Diffusion kurtosis imaging with multiple quantitative parameters for predicting microsatellite instability status of endometrial carcinoma. Abdom Radiol (NY). 2023; 48(12):3746–56. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-023-04041-6.CrossRefPubMed

17.

Stelloo E, Bosse T, Nout RA, et al. Refining prognosis and identifying targetable pathways for high-risk endometrial cancer; a TransPORTEC initiative. Mod Pathol. 2015; 28(6):836–44. https://doi.org/10.1038/modpathol.2015.43.CrossRefPubMed

18.

Hause RJ, Pritchard CC, Shendure J, Salipante SJ. Classification and characterization of microsatellite instability across 18 cancer types. Nat Med. 2016; 22(11):1342–50. https://doi.org/10.1038/nm.4191.CrossRefPubMed

19.

Kim SR, Pina A, Albert A, et al. Mismatch repair deficiency and prognostic significance in patients with low-risk endometrioid endometrial cancers. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2020; 30(6):783–8. https://doi.org/10.1136/ijgc-2019-000910.CrossRefPubMed

20.

Rutgers JK. Update on pathology, staging and molecular pathology of endometrial (uterine corpus) adenocarcinoma. Future Oncol. 2015; 11(23):3207–18. https://doi.org/10.2217/fon.15.262.CrossRefPubMed

21.

Maxwell GL, Risinger JI, Alvarez AA, Barrett JC, Berchuck A. Favorable survival associated with microsatellite instability in endometrioid endometrial cancers. Obstet Gynecol. 2001; 97(3):417–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0029-7844(00)01165-0.CrossRefPubMed

22.

Fiumicino S, Ercoli A, Ferrandina G, et al. Microsatellite instability is an independent indicator of recurrence in sporadic stage I-II endometrial adenocarcinoma. J Clin Oncol. 2001; 19(4):1008–14. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2001.19.4.1008.CrossRefPubMed

23.

Kim SR, Tone A, Kim RH, et al. Understanding the clinical implication of mismatch repair deficiency in endometrioid endometrial cancer through a prospective study. Gynecol Oncol. 2021; 161(1):221–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2021.01.002.CrossRefPubMed

24.

An HJ, Kim KI, Kim JY, et al. Microsatellite instability in endometrioid type endometrial adenocarcinoma is associated with poor prognostic indicators. Am J Surg Pathol. 2007; 31(6):846–53. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.pas.0000213423.30880.ac.CrossRefPubMed

25.

Bilbao C, Lara PC, Ramírez R, et al. Microsatellite instability predicts clinical outcome in radiation-treated endometrioid endometrial cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2010; 76(1):9–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2009.09.035.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

26.

Cosgrove CM, Backes FJ, O’Malley D, et al. Endometrial Cancer: Who Lives, Who Dies, Can We Improve Their Story? Oncologist. 2021; 26(12):1044–51. https://doi.org/10.1002/onco.13934.CrossRefPubMed

27.

Sun X, Kaufman PD. Ki-67: more than a proliferation marker. Chromosoma. 2018; 127(2):175–86. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00412-018-0659-8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

28.

Kitson S, Sivalingam VN, Bolton J, et al. Ki-67 in endometrial cancer: scoring optimization and prognostic relevance for window studies. Mod Pathol. 2017; 30(3):459–68. https://doi.org/10.1038/modpathol.2016.203.CrossRefPubMed

29.

Ma C, Tian S, Song Q, et al. Amide Proton Transfer-Weighted Imaging Combined With Intravoxel Incoherent Motion for Evaluating Microsatellite Instability in Endometrial Cancer. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2023; 57(2):493–505. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.28287.CrossRefPubMed

30.

Bhosale P, Ramalingam P, Ma J, et al. Can reduced field-of-view diffusion sequence help assess microsatellite instability in FIGO stage 1 endometrial cancer? J Magn Reson Imaging. 2017; 45(4):1216–24. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.25427.CrossRefPubMed

31.

Lin Z, Wang T, Li H, et al. Magnetic resonance-based radiomics nomogram for predicting microsatellite instability status in endometrial cancer. Quant Imaging Med Surg. 2023; 13(1):108–20. https://doi.org/10.21037/qims-22-255.CrossRefPubMed

32.

Jia Y, Hou L, Zhao J, et al. Radiomics analysis of multiparametric MRI for preoperative prediction of microsatellite instability status in endometrial cancer: a dual-center study. Front Oncol. 2024; 14:1333020. https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2024.1333020.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

33.

Veeraraghavan H, Friedman CF, DeLair DF, et al. Machine learning-based prediction of microsatellite instability and high tumor mutation burden from contrast-enhanced computed tomography in endometrial cancers. Sci Rep. 2020; 10(1):17769. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-72475-9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

34.

Wang Y, Shi C, Eisenberg R, Vnencak-Jones CL. Differences in Microsatellite Instability Profiles between Endometrioid and Colorectal Cancers: A Potential Cause for False-Negative Results? J Mol Diagn. 2017; 19(1):57–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmoldx.2016.07.008.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

35.

Bosse T, Nout RA, McAlpine JN, et al. Molecular Classification of Grade 3 Endometrioid Endometrial Cancers Identifies Distinct Prognostic Subgroups. Am J Surg Pathol. 2018; 42(5):561–8. https://doi.org/10.1097/pas.0000000000001020.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

36.

Sim KC, Park BJ, Han NY, Sung DJ, Kim MJ, Han YE. Efficacy of ZOOMit coronal diffusion-weighted imaging and MR texture analysis for differentiating between benign and malignant distal bile duct strictures. Abdom Radiol (NY). 2020; 45(8):2418–29. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-020-02625-0.CrossRefPubMed

37.

Yıldırım İ O, Sağlık S, Çelik H. Conventional and ZOOMit DWI for Evaluation of Testis in Patients With Ipsilateral Varicocele. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2017; 208(5):1045–50. https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.16.17292.CrossRefPubMed

38.

Cho KR, Cooper K, Croce S, et al. International society of gynecological pathologists (ISGyP) endometrial cancer project: guidelines from the special techniques and ancillary studies group. Int J Gynecol Pathol. 2019;38 Suppl 1(Iss 1 Suppl 1):S114–s22. https://doi.org/10.1097/pgp.0000000000000496

Titel: ZOOMit diffusion kurtosis imaging combined with diffusion weighted imaging for the assessment of microsatellite instability in endometrial cancer
verfasst von: Fang Wang
Yafei Wang
Chenjiao Ran
Jing Liang
Lisha Qi
Chen Zhang
Zhaoxiang Ye
Publikationsdatum: 06.12.2024
Verlag: Springer US
Erschienen in: Abdominal Radiology
Print ISSN: 2366-004X
Elektronische ISSN: 2366-0058
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-024-04720-y

Neu im Fachgebiet Radiologie

Stumme Schlaganfälle − ein häufiger Nebenbefund im Kopf-CT?

12.01.2025
Computertomografie
Nachrichten

In 4% der in der Notfallambulanz initiierten zerebralen Bildgebung sind „alte“ Schlaganfälle zu erkennen. Gar nicht so selten handelt es sich laut einer aktuellen Studie dabei um unbemerkte Insulte. Bietet sich hier womöglich die Chance auf ein effektives opportunistisches Screening?

Die elektronische Patientenakte kommt: Das sollten Sie jetzt wissen

12.01.2025
Elektronische Patientenakte
Nachrichten

Am 15. Januar geht die „ePA für alle“ zunächst in den Modellregionen an den Start. Doch schon bald soll sie in allen Praxen zum Einsatz kommen. Was ist jetzt zu tun? Was müssen Sie wissen? Wir geben in einem FAQ Antworten auf 21 Fragen.

Stören weiße Wände und viel Licht die Bildqualitätskontrolle?

09.01.2025
Mammografie
Nachrichten

Wenn es darum geht, die technische Qualität eines Mammogramms zu beurteilen, könnten graue Wandfarbe und reduzierte Beleuchtung im Bildgebungsraum von Vorteil sein. Darauf deuten zumindest Ergebnisse einer kleinen Studie hin.

PMBCL mit CMR: Radiatio kann ohne Risiko weggelassen werden

08.01.2025
Non-Hodgkin-Lymphome
Nachrichten

Patienten mit primär mediastinalem B-Zell-Lymphom (PMBCL), die nach der Induktionstherapie eine komplette metabolische Remission (CMR) erreichen und keine konsolidierende Bestrahlung erhalten, müssen offenbar keine Überlebensnachteile fürchten.

Update Radiologie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.

Newsletter bestellen