Perfusion-weighted imaging with dynamic contrast enhancement (PWI/DCE) morphologic, qualitative, semiquantitative, and radiomics features predicting undifferentiated pleomorphic sarcoma (UPS) treatment response.

Undifferentiated pleomorphic sarcoma (UPS) is the largest subgroup of soft tissue sarcomas. This study determined the value of perfusion-weighted imaging with dynamic-contrast-enhancement (PWI/DCE) morphologic, qualitative, and semiquantitative features for predicting UPS pathology-assessed treatment effect (PATE). This retrospective study included 33 surgically excised extremity UPS patients with pre-surgical MRI. Volumetric tumor segmentation from PWI/DCE was obtained at Baseline (BL), Post-Chemotherapy (PC), and Post-Radiation Therapy (PRT). The surgical specimens' PATE separated cases into Responders (R) (≥ 90%, 16 patients), Partial-Responders (PR) (89 - 31%, 10 patients), and Non-Responders (NR) (≤ 30%, seven patients). Seven semiquantitative kinetic parameters and maps were extracted from time-intensity curves (TICs), and 107 radiomic features were derived. Statistical analyses compared R vs. PR/NR. At PRT, 79% of R displayed a "Capsular" morphology (P = 1.49 × 10-7), and 100% demonstrated a TIC-type II (P = 8.32 × 10-7). 80% of PR showed "Unipolar" morphology (P = 1.03 × 10-5), and 60% expressed a TIC-type V (P = 0.06). Semiquantitative wash-in rate (WiR) was able to separate R vs. PR/NR (P = 0.0078). The WiR radiomics displayed significant differences in the first_order_10 percentile (P = 0.0178) comparing R vs. PR/NR at PRT. The PWI/DCE TIC-type II curve, low WiR, and "Capsular" enhancement represent PRT patterns typically observed in successfully treated UPS and demonstrate potential for UPS treatment response assessment.

Imaging bone metastases in breast cancer: evidence on comparative test accuracy.

BACKGROUND: Numerous imaging modalities may be used to detect bone metastases (BM) in women with breast cancer. METHODS: Systematic evidence review, including quality appraisal, of studies reporting on comparative imaging accuracy for detection of BM from breast cancer. RESULTS: Eligible studies (N = 16) included breast cancer subjects who had imaging evaluation for suspected BM or for staging/restaging in suspected local or distant relapse. Median prevalence of BM was 34.0% (range 10.0%-66.7%). There was substantial heterogeneity in the quality of reference standards and in the prevalence of BM, which could account for some of the differences in reported comparative accuracy. Most frequently, bone scan (BS) was compared with newer imaging modalities in subjects selected to both tests; therefore, results could be affected by selection bias. There was some evidence that positron emission tomography (PET), and limited evidence that PET/computed tomography (CT), CT, and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), may provide small increments in accuracy relative to BS as add-on tests; there was little evidence regarding single photon emission computed tomography or whole-body MRI. CONCLUSIONS: There is some evidence of enhanced incremental accuracy for some of the above-mentioned tests where used as add-on in subjects selected to more than one imaging modality, with little evidence to support their application as a replacement to BS in first-line imaging of BM. PET/CT appears to have high accuracy and is recommended for further evaluation.

Tumour response interpretation with new tumour response criteria vs the World Health Organisation criteria in patients with bone-only metastatic breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: We compared the utility of a new response classification (MDA; based on computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), plain radiography (XR), and skeletal scintigraphy (SS)) and the World Health Organisation response classification (WHO; based on XR and SS) in stratifying breast cancer patients with bone-only metastases with respect to progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and clinical response. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 41 patients with bone-only metastatic breast cancer and assigned responses according to the MDA and WHO criteria. We analysed whether the MDA or WHO response classifications correlated with PFS and OS. RESULTS: With the MDA criteria, there were significant differences in PFS between patients classified as responders and those classified as nonresponders (P=0.025), but with the WHO criteria, there were not. Neither criteria distinguished responders from nonresponders in terms of OS. MDA response criteria correlated better than WHO response criteria with clinical response assessment. CONCLUSIONS: The MDA classification is superior to the WHO classification in differentiating between responders and nonresponders among breast cancer patients with bone-only metastases. Application of the MDA classification may allow bone lesions to be considered measurable disease. Prospective study is needed to test the MDA classification among patients with bone metastasis.

Thoracic outlet syndrome: case report and review.

Thoracic outlet syndrome is caused by a large number of etiologies, which can affect the elements of the neurovascular bundle in combination or separately. The radiology department offers many imaging modalities which can assist in determining which structures may be involved as well as suggest possible etiology. The interventional radiologist, often working in conjunction with the surgeon, can assist in the treatment of many arterial or venous disorders, such as stenosis or thrombosis commonly seen in patients with Thoracic outlet syndrome.