Percreta score to differentiate between placenta accreta and placenta percreta with ultrasound and MR imaging.

INTRODUCTION: The objective of this study was to assess the performance of ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) features in helping to classify the type of placenta accreta spectrum (PAS; accreta/increta vs percreta), alone or combined in a predictive score. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study in 82 pregnant women with PAS who underwent ultrasound and MRI examination of the pelvis before delivery (from an initial cohort of 185 women with PAS). We estimated the sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of MRI and ultrasound in the diagnosis of the type of PAS. We analyzed cesarean and imaging features using univariable logistic regression analysis. We constructed a nomogram to predict the risk of placenta percreta and validated it with bootstrap resampling, then used receiver operating characteristic curves to assess the performance of the model in distinguishing between placenta percreta and placenta accreta/increta. RESULTS: Among the 82 patients, 29 (35%) had placenta accreta/increta and 53 (65%) had placenta percreta. The best features to discriminate between placenta accreta/increta and placenta percreta with ultrasound were increased vascularization at the uterine serosa-bladder wall interface (odds ratio [OR] 7.93; 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.78-24.99; p < 0.01) and the number of lacunae without a hyperechogenic halo (OR 1.36; 95% CI 1.14-1.67; p = 0.012). Concerning MRI markers, heterogeneous placenta (OR 12.89; 95% CI 3.05-89.16; p = 0.002), dark intraplacental bands (OR 12.89; 95% CI 3.05-89.16; p = 0.002) and bladder wall interruption (OR 15.89; 95% CI 4.78-73.33; p < 0.001) had a higher OR in discriminating placenta accreta/increta from placenta percreta. The nomogram yielded areas under the curve of 0.841 (95% CI 0.754-0.927) and 0.856 (95% CI 0.767-0.945), after bootstrap resampling, for the accurate prediction of placenta percreta. CONCLUSIONS: The nomogram we developed to predict the risk of placenta percreta among patients with PAS had good discriminative capabilities. This performance and its impact on maternal morbidity should be confirmed by future prospective studies.

Validation of dynamic contrast-enhanced ultrasound in predicting outcomes of antiangiogenic therapy for solid tumors: the French multicenter support for innovative and expensive techniques study.

OBJECTIVES: Dynamic contrast-enhanced ultrasound (DCE-US) has been used in single-center studies to evaluate tumor response to antiangiogenic treatments: the change of area under the perfusion curve (AUC), a criterion linked to blood volume, was consistently correlated with the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors response. The main objective here was to do a multicentric validation of the use of DCE-US to evaluate tumor response in different solid tumor types treated by several antiangiogenic agents. A secondary objective was to evaluate the costs of the procedure. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This prospective study included patients from 2007 to 2010 in 19 centers (8 teaching hospitals and 11 comprehensive cancer centers). All patients treated with antiangiogenic therapy were eligible. Dynamic contrast-enhanced ultrasound examinations were performed at baseline as well as on days 7, 15, 30, and 60. For each examination, a perfusion curve was recorded during 3 minutes after injection of a contrast agent. Change from baseline at each time point was estimated for each of 7 fitted criteria. The main end point was freedom from progression (FFP). Criterion/time-point combinations with the strongest correlation with FFP were analyzed further to estimate an optimal cutoff point. RESULTS: A total of 1968 DCE-US examinations in 539 patients were analyzed. The median follow-up was 1.65 years. Variations from baseline were significant at day 30 for several criteria, with AUC having the most significant association with FFP (P = 0.00002). Patients with a greater than 40% decrease in AUC at day 30 had better FFP (P = 0.005) and overall survival (P = 0.05). The mean cost of each DCE-US was 180&OV0556;, which corresponds to $250 using the current exchange rate. CONCLUSIONS: Dynamic contrast-enhanced ultrasound is a new functional imaging technique that provides a validated criterion, namely, the change of AUC from baseline to day 30, which is predictive of tumor progression in a large multicenter cohort. Because of its low cost, it should be considered in the routine evaluation of solid tumors treated with antiangiogenic therapy.

Standardization of dynamic contrast-enhanced ultrasound for the evaluation of antiangiogenic therapies: the French multicenter Support for Innovative and Expensive Techniques Study.

OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this study are to describe the standardization and dissemination of dynamic contrast-enhanced ultrasound (DCE-US) for the evaluation of antiangiogenic treatments in solid tumors across 19 oncology centers in France and to define a quality score to account for the variability of the evaluation criteria used to collect DCE-US data. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This prospective Soutien aux Techniques Innovantes Coûteuses (Support for Innovative and Expensive Techniques) DCE-US study included patients with metastatic breast cancer, melanoma, colon cancer, gastrointestinal stromal tumors, renal cell carcinoma and patients with primary hepatocellular carcinoma tumors treated with antiangiogenic therapy. The DCE-US method was made available across 19 oncology centers in France. Overall, 2339 DCE-US examinations were performed by 65 radiologists in 539 patients.One target site per patient was studied. Standardized DCE-US examinations were performed before treatment (day 0) and at days 7, 15, 30, and 60. Dynamic contrast-enhanced ultrasound data were transferred from the different sites to the main study center at the Institut Gustave-Roussy for analysis. Quantitative analyses were performed with a mathematical model to determine 7 DCE-US functional parameters using raw linear data. Radiologists had to evaluate 6 criteria that were potentially linked to the precision of the evaluation of these parameters: lesion size, target motion, loss of target, clear borders, total acquisition of wash-in, and vascular recognition imaging window adapted to the lesion size.Eighteen DCE-US examinations were randomly selected from the Soutien aux Techniques Innovantes Coûteuses (Support for Innovative and Expensive Techniques) database. Each examination was quantified twice by 8 engineers/radiologists trained to evaluate the perfusion parameters. The intraobserver variability was estimated on the basis of differences between examinations performed by the same radiologist. The mean coefficient of variability associated with each quality criterion was estimated. The final quality score, ranging from 0 to 5, was defined according to the value of coefficient of variability for each criterion. RESULTS: A total of 2062 examinations were stored with raw linear data. Five criteria were found to have a major impact on quality: lesion size, motion, loss of target, borders, and total acquisition of wash-in. Only 3% of the examinations were of poor quality (quality of 0); quality was correlated with the radiologists' experience, such that it was significantly higher for radiologists who had performed more than 60 DCE-US examinations (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: The DCE-US methodology has been successfully provided to several centers across France together with strict rules for quality assessment. Only 3% of examinations carried out at these centers were considered not interpretable.