Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 8, 2025
Tracking the Mammary Architectural Features and Detecting Breast Cancer with Magnetic Resonance Diffusion Tensor Imaging
Published on: December 15, 2014
Treatment Response Assessment in Multiple Myeloma: Histogram Analysis of Total Tumor Apparent Diffusion Coefficient
Yuhan Gao1, Qin Wang2, Lu Zhang1
1Department of Hematology, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Beijing, China.
Background:
The International Myeloma Working Group (IMWG) consensus criteria for response assessment in multiple myeloma (MM) has methodological limitations. Whole-body diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) with apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) histogram analysis may be complementary to response assessment of MM.
Purpose:
To explore the role of histogram analysis of the ADC based on the total tumor volume (ttADC) in response assessment in patients with newly diagnosed MM (NDMM).
Study Type:
Retrospective.
Population:
Thirty-six patients with NDMM.
Field Strength/Sequence:
3.0T/single-shot DWI echo planar imaging (EPI) sequence with an integrated slice-by-slice shimming (iShim) technique.
Assessment:
Baseline (median: 1 day before treatment) and post-treatment (median: five cycles of therapy) whole-body DWI were analyzed. A region of interest (ROI) containing lesions on every section of baseline image was drawn to derive the per-patient total tumor data. Post-treatment image analysis was based on the same ROI as the corresponding baseline. Histogram metrics were extracted from both ROIs. Patients were categorized into the very good partial response or better (VGPR+) group and the less than VGPR group per the IMWG response criteria for response assessment. Progression-free survival (PFS) was also calculated.
Statistical Tests:
Mann-Whitney test and Fisher's exact or Chi-squared tests, Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis and DeLong test, Kaplan-Meier analysis and Cox proportional hazards model. A two-tailed P-value <0.05 was considered statistically significant.
Results:
Thirty patients were categorized into the VGPR+ group and six into the less than VGPR group. The ttADC histogram changes between post-treatment and baseline metrics (ΔttADC) revealed significant differences in all percentile values between the VGPR+ and less than VGPR groups. For distinguishing VGPR+, ΔttADC_5th percentile had the largest area under the curve (AUC) (0.950, 95% CI 0.821-0.995). Patients with lower ΔttADC_5th percentile values (cutoff point, 188.193) showed significantly longer PFS (HR = 34.911, 95% CI 6.392-190.677).
Data Conclusion:
ttADC histogram may facilitate response assessment in patients with NDMM.
Level Of Evidence:
3 TECHNICAL EFFICACY: Stage 4.
