Table 2.
DW-MRI and treatment response in gastric cancer
| Study (ref.) | Year | Country | Type of study | No. of patients | MRI system | b values (s/mm2) | ROI placement for ADC calculation | Pre-treatment ADC in responders (× 10-3 mm2/s) | Pre-treatment ADC in non-responders (× 10-3 mm2/s) | Post-treatment ADC in responders (× 10-3 mm2/s) | Post-treatment ADC in non-responders (× 10-3 mm2/s) | Key message |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| De Cobelli et al [46] | 2013 | Italy | Prospective | 23 a | 1.5 T | 0, 600 | Primary tumour | 1.32 | 1.63 | 2.22 | 1.51 | ADC changes can be considered a reliable indicator of treatment response |
| Giganti et al [47] | 2014 | Italy | Prospective | 17 | 1.5 T | 0, 600 | Primary tumour | 1.39 | 1.67 | 1.89 | 1.38 | Post-treatment ADC is a good marker of treatment response |
| Lee et al [44] | 2015 | Korea | Prospective | 11 | 3.0 T | 100, 500, 1000 | Primary tumour | 1.08 b | 1.16 b | NR | NR | ADC is not significantly different between responders and non-responders |
| Zhong et al [45] | 2016 | China | Prospective | 106 | 3.0 T | 0, 1000 | Lymph nodes | 1.11 c 1.15 d |
1.19 e | NR 1.64 d |
1.53 e | ADC can predict nodal response to chemotherapy |
MRI magnetic resonance imaging, ROI region of interest, ADC apparent diffusion coefficient, NR not reported
aSubgroup considering Siewert III and gastric cancer
bAveraged between two readers
cComplete response
dPartial response
eStable disease