Aaditya P Sinha, Patriek Jurrius, Anne-Sophie van Schelt, Omar Darwish, Belul Shifa, Giacomo Annio, Zhane Peterson, Hannah Jeffery, Karen Welsh, Anna Metafa, John Spence, Ashutosh Kothari, Hisham Hamed, Georgina Bitsakou, Vasileios Karydakis, Mangesh Thorat, Elina Shaari, Ali Sever, Anne Rigg, Tony Ng, Sarah Pinder, Ralph Sinkus, Arnie Purushotham
{"title":"Tumor Biomechanics Quantified Using MR Elastography to Predict Response to Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy in Individuals with Breast Cancer.","authors":"Aaditya P Sinha, Patriek Jurrius, Anne-Sophie van Schelt, Omar Darwish, Belul Shifa, Giacomo Annio, Zhane Peterson, Hannah Jeffery, Karen Welsh, Anna Metafa, John Spence, Ashutosh Kothari, Hisham Hamed, Georgina Bitsakou, Vasileios Karydakis, Mangesh Thorat, Elina Shaari, Ali Sever, Anne Rigg, Tony Ng, Sarah Pinder, Ralph Sinkus, Arnie Purushotham","doi":"10.1148/rycan.240138","DOIUrl":"10.1148/rycan.240138","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Purpose To evaluate the ability of MR elastography (MRE) to noninvasively quantify tissue biomechanics and determine the added diagnostic value of biomechanics for predicting response throughout neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC). Materials and Methods In this prospective study (between September 2020 and August 2023; registration no. NCT03238144), participants with breast cancer scheduled to undergo NAC underwent five MRE scans at different time points alongside clinical dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI (DCE MRI). Regions of interest were drawn over the tumor region for the first two scans, while for the post-NAC scan, the initial pre-NAC tumor footprint was used. Biomechanics, specifically tumor stiffness and phase angle within these regions of interest, were quantified as well as the corresponding ratios relative to before NAC (tumor-stiffness ratio and phase-angle ratio, respectively). Postsurgical pathologic analysis was used to determine complete and partial responders. Furthermore, a repeatability analysis was performed for 18 participants. Results Datasets of 41 female participants (mean age, 47 years ± 12.5 [SD]) were included in this analysis. The tumor-stiffness ratio following NAC decreased significantly for complete responders and increased for partial responders (0.76 ± 0.16 and 1.14 ± 0.24, respectively; <i>P</i> < .001). The phase-angle ratio after the first cycle of the first NAC regimen compared with before NAC predicted pathologic response (1.23 ± 0.31 vs 0.91 ± 0.34; <i>P</i> < .001). Combining the tumor stiffness ratio with DCE MRI improved specificity compared with DCE MRI alone (96% vs 44%) while maintaining the high sensitivity of DCE MRI (94%). Repeatability analysis showed excellent agreement for elasticity (repeatability coefficient, 8.3%) and phase angle (repeatability coefficient, 5%). Conclusion MRE-derived phase-angle ratio and tumor stiffness ratio were associated with pathologic complete response in participants with breast cancer undergoing NAC, and a combined DCE MRI plus MRE approach significantly enhanced specificity for identification of complete responders after NAC, while maintaining high sensitivity. <b>Keywords:</b> Breast Cancer, MR Elastography, Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy, Dynamic Contrast-enhanced MRI <i>Supplemental material is available for this article.</i> Clinical trials registration no. NCT03238144 Published under a CC BY 4.0 license.</p>","PeriodicalId":20786,"journal":{"name":"Radiology. Imaging cancer","volume":"7 2","pages":"e240138"},"PeriodicalIF":5.6,"publicationDate":"2025-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11966563/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143415027","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"2024 Manuscript Reviewers: A Note of Thanks.","authors":"Umar Mahmood, Gary D Luker","doi":"10.1148/rycan.250117","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1148/rycan.250117","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":20786,"journal":{"name":"Radiology. Imaging cancer","volume":"7 2","pages":"e250117"},"PeriodicalIF":5.6,"publicationDate":"2025-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143731381","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Jirarat Jirarayapong, Leah H Portnow, Jayender Jagadeesan, Dylan C Kwait, Zhou Lan, Thanh U Barbie, Melissa A Mallory, Leah Kim, Mehra Golshan, Eva C Gombos
{"title":"Thermal Ablation versus Surgical Resection for Management of Small Colorectal Liver Metastases: Insights from the COLLISION Trial.","authors":"Radhika Rajeev, Hero K Hussain","doi":"10.1148/rycan.259008","DOIUrl":"10.1148/rycan.259008","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":20786,"journal":{"name":"Radiology. Imaging cancer","volume":"7 2","pages":"e259008"},"PeriodicalIF":5.6,"publicationDate":"2025-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11966547/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143625635","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Anna L Lai, Jyothirmayi Velaga, Kae Jack Tay, Guanqi Hang, Yu Guang Tan, John S P Yuen, Christopher W S Cheng, Nye Thane Ngo, Yan Mee Law
{"title":"Multiparametric MRI before and after Focal Therapy for Prostate Cancer: Pearls and Pitfalls for the Reporting Radiologist.","authors":"Anna L Lai, Jyothirmayi Velaga, Kae Jack Tay, Guanqi Hang, Yu Guang Tan, John S P Yuen, Christopher W S Cheng, Nye Thane Ngo, Yan Mee Law","doi":"10.1148/rycan.240269","DOIUrl":"10.1148/rycan.240269","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In this era of personalized precision medicine, the accuracy of multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) and targeted biopsy in helping detect low-volume clinically significant prostate cancer has rekindled interest in focal therapy for primary prostate cancer. Such therapy may reduce the debilitating morbidity of radical whole-gland treatment. Post-focal therapy mpMRI surveillance is critical for assessing oncologic efficacy. Radiologists interpreting post-focal therapy mpMRI must be familiar with expected posttreatment changes and pitfalls in assessing posttreatment recurrence. In this review, the authors present their experience with mpMRI before and after focal therapy. While cryotherapy and irreversible electroporation are the primary modalities of focal therapy offered in their institution, the authors aim to provide a comprehensive overview of the more common focal therapy modalities in use. Pertinent considerations of mpMRI in pretreatment patient selection and treatment planning are discussed. The recently proposed standardized post-focal therapy assessment systems, Prostate Imaging after Focal Ablation (ie, PI-FAB) and Transatlantic Recommendations for Prostate Gland Evaluation with MRI after Focal Therapy (ie, TARGET), as well as pearls and pitfalls in the detection of tumor recurrence and medium- and long-term mpMRI surveillance of the post-focal therapy prostate, are also discussed. This review aims to provide a valuable reference for radiologists involved in the care of patients in the evolving field of prostate cancer focal therapy. <b>Keywords:</b> MR Imaging, Urinary, Prostate, Neoplasms-Primary, Focal Therapy, Prostate Cancer, MRI, Surveillance, Tumor Recurrence Published under a CC BY 4.0 license.</p>","PeriodicalId":20786,"journal":{"name":"Radiology. Imaging cancer","volume":"7 2","pages":"e240269"},"PeriodicalIF":5.6,"publicationDate":"2025-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11966551/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143468973","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Safety and Feasibility of US-guided Microwave Ablation for the Treatment of Bethesda III Thyroid Nodules with Negative Eight-Gene Panel Mutational Profile.","authors":"Qingqing Tang, Jiawei Chen, Dengke Zhang, Qingnan Huang, Yong Chen, Xuexin Liang, Kai Zeng, Yuxian Guo, Mingliang Huang, Yanghui Wei","doi":"10.1148/rycan.240058","DOIUrl":"10.1148/rycan.240058","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Purpose To evaluate the safety and efficacy of US-guided thermal ablation in the treatment of Bethesda III thyroid nodules with negative eight-gene panel testing results. Materials and Methods This retrospective single-center study included patients with thyroid nodules diagnosed as Bethesda category III (atypia of undetermined significance) at fine-needle aspiration biopsy and with negative eight-gene testing results who were treated with US-guided microwave ablation (MWA) between July 2020 and September 2023. Incidence of complications, technical success rate (TSR), volume reduction rate (VRR), nodule recurrence, and thyroid function were evaluated over a follow-up period of 2 years. Data before and after MWA were compared using variance analysis and the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel χ<sup>2</sup> test. Results A total of 101 Bethesda III nodules were detected in 95 patients (mean ± SD age, 47.08 years ±14.63; 79 female patients, 16 male patients), all of which were completely ablated (100% TSR). Two patients experienced mild neck swelling and pressure sensation after the minimally invasive operation, and the incidence of postoperative complications was 2% (two of 95). None of the patients experienced tumor recurrence or progression. At 2-year follow-up, the mean VRR of the ablated area was 90.88% ± 13.59 in 15 patients; 87% (13 of 15) of these patients had a 100% VRR. There was no evidence of a difference in thyroid function before and after MWA from 1 to 24 months (<i>P</i> = .15-.99). Conclusion US-guided MWA was safe and effective for the treatment of Bethesda III thyroid nodules with negative eight-gene panel testing results. <b>Keywords:</b> Ablation Techniques, Radiation Therapy/Oncology, Head/Neck, Thyroid, Safety, Observer Performance Published under a CC BY 4.0 license.</p>","PeriodicalId":20786,"journal":{"name":"Radiology. Imaging cancer","volume":"7 1","pages":"e240058"},"PeriodicalIF":5.6,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11791661/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142819096","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}