Abstract:

Aim: was to estimate the diagnostic value of MRI (qualitative and tumor size analysis) in the evaluation of preoperative chemotherapy in patients with soft tissue sarcomas on different stages of examination.

Material and methods: we analyzed data of 74 patients with soft tissue sarcomas. All patients underwent MRI. Patients were examined before, in the middle and at the end of the course of the preoperative chemotherapy

Results: the sensitivity (predilection of Grade III-IV pathologic response) of qualitative MRI signs in the middle of the neoadjuvant chemotherapy (after 2-3 cycles) was 73%, the specificity (predilection of Grade I-II pathologic response) was 88%; 69% and 100% for maximum tumor size evaluation, correspondingly At the end of the preoperative treatment, values of the sensitivity and specificity of qualitative MRI signs decreased to 50% and 78%, respectively, the sensitivity of maximum tumor size estimation decreased to 31%, while specificity remained the same -100%.

Conclusion: MRI with qualitative and tumor size analysis is an informative method in assessment of preoperative chemotherapy of soft tissue sarcomas.

References

1.     Fletcher C.D.M. WHO Classification of Tumors: Pathology and Genetics of Tumors of Soft Tissue and Bone. Lyon: IARC Press. 2002;312 p.

2.     Putnam J.B. Metastases from Sarcoma American Cancer Society Atlas of Clinical Oncology: Soft Tissue Sarcomas. Hamiliton-Ontario: BC Decker Inc. 2002; 266-278.

3.    Aliev M.D. Sovremennye podhody k lecheniju sarkommjagkih tkanej[Modern approaches to the treatment of soft tissue sarcomas.]. Prakticheskaja onkologija. 2004; 5(4):250- 255 [In Russ].

4.     Pisters P.W.T., Patel S.R, Varma D.G.K., et al. Preoperative chemotherapy for stage IIIB extremity soft tissue sarcoma: long term results from single institution. J. Clin.Oncol. 1997;15:3481-3487.

5.     Gortzak E., Azzarelli A., Buesa J. et al. A randomized phase II study on neo-adjuvant chemotherapy for ‘high-risk’ adult soft-tissue sarcoma. Europ. J. Cacer. 2001; 37:1096-1103.

6.     Lucas D.R., Kshirsagar M.P., Biermann J.S. et al. Histologic alterations from neoadjuvant chemotherapy in high-grade extremity soft tissue sarcoma: clinicopathological correlation. Oncologist. 2008;13( 4):451-458.

7.     WHO Handbook for reporting results of cancer treatment. WHO Publication, Geneva. 1979;48:1-45.

8.     Park J.O., Lee S.I., Song S.Y et al. Measuring response in solid tumors: comparision of RECIST and WHO response criteria. Jpn. J. Clin. Oncol. 2003; 33: 533-537.

9.     Therasse P., Arbuck S.G., Eisenhauer E.A., et al.New guidelines to evaluate the response to treatment in solid tumors (RECIST guidelines). J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 2000;92:205-216.

10.   Eisenhauer E.A., Therasse P., Bogaerts J., et al. New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Eur. J. Cancer. 2009;45: 228-247.

11.   Tuma R.S. Sometimes size doesn’t matter: reevaluating RECIST and tumor response end points. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 2006; 98: 1272-1274.

12.   Gehan E.A., Tefft M.C. Will there be resistance to the RECIST (tumor Response Criteria in Solid Tumors. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 2000; 92: 179-181.

13.   Vanel D., Lacombe M.J., Couanet D. et al. Musculoskeletal tumors: follow-up with MR imaging after treatment with surgery and radiation therapy. Radiology. 1987; 164(1): 243-245.

14.   Siegel M.J. Magnetic resonance imaging of musculoskeletal soft tissue masses. Radiol.Clin. North. Am. 2001; 39(4):701-720.

15.   Fletcher B.D., Reddick W.E., Taylor J.S. Dynamic MR imaging of musculoskeletal neoplasm. Radiology. 1997; 200:869-872.

16.   Biondetti P.R., Ehman R.L. Soft-tissue sarcomas: use of textural patterns in skeletal muscle as a diagnostic feature in postoperative MR imaging. Radiology. 1992:183(3):845-848.

17.   Wang X., Jacobs M., Fayad L. Therapeutic Response in Musculoskeletal Soft Tissue Sarcomas: Evaluation by Magnetic Resonance Imaging. NMR Biomed. 2011;24(6):750-763.

18.   Sanchez R.B., Quinn S.F., Walling A., et al Musculoskeletal neoplasms after intraarterial chemotherapy: correlation of MR images with pathologic specimens. Radiology. 1990;174:237-240.

19.   Erlemann R., Sciuk J., Bosse A., et al. Response of osteosarcoma and Ewing sarcoma to preoperative chemotherapy: assessment with dynamic and static MR imaging and skeletal scintigraphy. Radiology. 1990; 175:791-796.

20.   Glazer H.S., Lee K.T. J., Levitt R.G. et al Radiation fibrosis: differentiation from recurrent tumor by MR imaging. Radiology. 1985;156:721-726.

21.   Glazkova T.G. Ocenka kachestva metodov diagnostiki i prognoza v medicine [Quality of assessment methods for diagnosis and prognosis in medicine.]. Vestnik ONC AMN Rossii. 1994;2:3-11 [In Russ].

22.   Eisenhauer E.A. New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Eur. J. Cancer. 2009;45:228-247.

23.   Tuma R.S. Sometimes size doesn’t matter: reevaluating RECIST and tumor response end points J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 2006;98:1272-1274.

24.   Gehan E.A. Will there be resistance to the RECIST (tumor Response Criteria in Solid Tumors). J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 2000;92:179-181.

25.   Stacchiotti S., Collini P., Messina A. et al. High- grade soft-tissue sarcomas: tumor response assessment - pilot study to assess the correlation between radiologic and pathologic response by using RECIST and Choi criteria. Radiology. 2009;251:447-456.

26.   Carl Jaffe C. Response assistment in clinical trials: Implications for sarcoma clinical trial design. Oncologist. 2008;13(2):14-18.

27.   Choi H. Response evaluation of gastrointestinal stromal tumors. H. Choi. Oncologist. 2008;13(2):4-7.