Whole-tumor histogram analysis of apparent diffusion coefficient for differentiating adenosquamous carcinoma and adenocarcinoma from squamous cell carcinoma in patients with cervical cancer
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online October, 2022
Whole-tumor histogram analysis of apparent diffusion coefficient for differentiating adenosquamous carcinoma and adenocarcinoma from squamous cell carcinoma in patients with cervical cancer
Differentiating adenosquamous carcinoma (ASC) and adenocarcinoma (AC) from squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) precisely is crucial for treatment strategy and prognosis prediction in patients with cervical cancer (CC).
Purpose
To differentiate ASC and AC from SCC in patients with CC using the apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) histogram analysis.
Material and Methods
A total of 118 patients with histologically diagnosed ASC, AC, and SCC were included. The ADC histogram parameters were extracted from ADC maps. Receiver operating characteristic analysis was performed to evaluate the diagnostic performance of each ADC histogram parameter in differentiating the subtypes of CC. The predictors for histologic subtypes were further selected using univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses.
Results
The ADCmean, ADCmax, ADCP10, ADCP25, ADCP75, ADCP90, ADCmedian, and ADCmode of the ASC were significantly lower than those of the AC; and ADCkurtosis and ADCskewness of the ASC were lower than those of the SCC. The ADCmean, ADCmax, ADCP10, ADCP25, ADCP75, ADCP90, ADCmedian, and ADCmode of AC were significantly higher than those of the SCC. The ADCP10 and ADCP10 + diameter yielded the AUCs of 0.753 and 0.778 in differentiating ASC from AC. The ADCmedian and ADCmedian + diameter yielded the AUCs of 0.807 and 0.838 in differentiating AC from SCC. The ADCskewness yielded the AUC of 0.713 in differentiating ASC from SCC.
Conclusion
The ADCP10 and ADCP10 + diameter, ADCmedian, and ADCmedian + diameter performed well in differentiating ASC from AC and AC from SCC, respectively. However, ADCskewness exhibited a limited ability in differentiating ASC from SCC.
BaekMHParkJYKimD, et al.
Comparison of adenocarcinoma and adenosquamous carcinoma in patients with early-stage cervical cancer after radical surgery. Gynecol Oncol2014;
135:462–467.
2.
Vinh-HungVBourgainCVlastosG, et al.
Prognostic value of histopathology and trends in cervical cancer: a SEER population study. BMC Cancer2007;
7:164.
3.
YokoiEMabuchiSTakahashiR, et al.
Impact of histological subtype on survival in patients with locally advanced cervical cancer that were treated with definitive radiotherapy: adenocarcinoma/adenosquamous carcinoma versus squamous cell carcinoma. J Gynecol Oncol2017;
28:e19.
4.
ShojiTTakatoriESaitoT, et al.
Neoadjuvant chemotherapy using platinum- and taxane-based regimens for bulky stage Ib2 to IIb non-squamous cell carcinoma of the uterine cervix. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol2013;
71:657–662.
5.
KohWJGreerBEAbu-RustumNR, et al.
Cervical cancer, version 2.2015. J Natl Compr Canc Netw2015;
13:395–404.
6.
NohJMParkWKimYS, et al.
Comparison of clinical outcomes of adenocarcinoma and adenosquamous carcinoma in uterine cervical cancer patients receiving surgical resection followed by radiotherapy: a multicenter retrospective study (KROG 13-10). Gynecol Oncol2014;
132:618–623.
7.
GalicVHerzogTJLewinSN, et al.
Prognostic significance of adenocarcinoma histology in women with cervical cancer. Gynecol Oncol2012;
125:287–291.
8.
IrieTKigawaJMinagawaY, et al.
Prognosis and clinicopathological characteristics of Ib-IIb adenocarcinoma of the uterine cervix in patients who have had radical hysterectomy. Eur J Surg Oncol2000;
26:464–467.
9.
HuangYTWangCCTsaiCS, et al.
Long-term outcome and prognostic factors for adenocarcinoma/adenosquamous carcinoma of cervix after definitive radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys2011;
80:429–436.
10.
HeLWuLSuG, et al.
The efficacy of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in different histological types of cervical cancer. Gynecol Oncol2014;
134:419–425.
11.
MizunoTKojimaYYonemoriK, et al.
HER3 protein expression as a risk factor for post-operative recurrence in patients with early-stage adenocarcinoma and adenosquamous carcinoma of the cervix. Oncol Lett2020;
20:38.
12.
ZhangXLvZXuX, et al.
Comparison of adenocarcinoma and adenosquamous carcinoma prognoses in Chinese patients with FIGO stage IB-IIA cervical cancer following radical surgery. BMC Cancer2020;
20:664.
13.
NakanishiTIshikawaHSuzukiY, et al.
A comparison of prognoses of pathologic stage Ib adenocarcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma of the uterine cervix. Gynecol Oncol2000;
79:289–293.
14.
KarunyaRJTharaniPJohnS, et al.
Role of functional magnetic resonance imaging derived parameters as imaging biomarkers and correlation with clinicopathological features in carcinoma of uterine cervix. J Clin Diagn Res2017;
11:XC06–XC11.
15.
WangSSShermanMESilverbergSG, et al.
Pathological characteristics of cervical adenocarcinoma in a multi-center US based study. Gynecol Oncol2006;
103:541–546
16.
LeeKBMLeeJMParkCY, et al.
What is the difference between squamous cell carcinoma and adenocarcinoma of the cervix? A matched case–control study. Int J Gynecol Cancer2006;
16:1569–1573.
17.
FarleyJHHickeyKWCarlsonJW, et al.
Adenosquamous histology predicts a poor outcome for patients with advanced-stage, but not early-stage, cervical carcinoma. Cancer2003;
97:2196–2202.
18.
TwuNFOuYCLiaoCI, et al.
Prognostic factors and adjuvant therapy on survival in early-stage cervical adenocarcinoma/adenosquamous carcinoma after primary radical surgery: a Taiwanese gynecologic oncology group (TGOG) study. Surg Oncol2016;
25:229–235.
19.
LeeJYLeeCHahnS, et al.
Prognosis of Adenosquamous carcinoma compared with adenocarcinoma in uterine cervical Cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies. Int J Gynecol Cancer Official J Int Gynecol Cancer Soc2014;
24:289.
20.
MoukarzelLAAngaritaAMVandenBusscheC, et al,
Preinvasive and invasive cervical adenocarcinoma: preceding low-risk or negative pap result increases time to diagnosis. J Low Genit Tract Dis2017;
21:91–96.
21.
MengNWangJSunJ, et al.
Using amide proton transfer to identify cervical squamous carcinoma/adenocarcinoma and evaluate its differentiation grade. Magn Reson Imaging2019;
61:9–15.
22.
BeckerASPeruchoJAWurnigMC, et al.
Assessment of cervical cancer with a parameter-free intravoxel incoherent motion imaging algorithm. Korean J Radiol2017;
18:510–518.
23.
WangMPeruchoJAUTseKY, et al.
MRI texture features differentiate clinicopathological characteristics of cervical carcinoma. Eur Radiol2020;
30:5384–5391.
24.
WestfallPH.Kurtosis as peakedness, 1905 – 2014. R.I.P. Am Stat2014;
68:191–195.
25.
BaekHJKimHSKimN, et al.
Percent change of perfusion skewness and kurtosis: A potential imaging biomarker for early treatment response in patients with newly diagnosed glioblastomas. Radiology2012;
264:834–843.
26.
LeeHNKimJIShinSY, et al.
Combined CT texture analysis and nodal axial ratio for detection of nodal metastasis in esophageal cancer. Br J Radiol2020;
93:20190827.
27.
HeMSongYLiH, et al.
Histogram analysis comparison of monoexponential, advanced diffusion-weighted imaging, and dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI for differentiating borderline from malignant epithelial ovarian tumors. J Magn Reson Imaging2020;
52:257–268.
28.
ParkKJ.Cervical adenocarcinoma: integration of HPV status, pattern of invasion, morphology and molecular markers into classification. Histopathology2020;
76:112–127.
29.
SindosMPisalNFreeman-WangT, et al.
Cervical cancer: effect of glandular cell type on prognosis, treatment, and survival. Obstet Gynecol2003;
101:1354–1355.
30.
StolnicuSHoangLHanko-BauerO, et al.
Cervical adenosquamous carcinoma: detailed analysis of morphology, immunohistochemical profile, and clinical outcomes in 59 cases. Mod Pathol2019;
32:269–279.
31.
ShingletonHMGoreHBradleyDH, et al.
Adenocarcinoma of the cervix. I. Clinical evaluation and pathologic features. Am J Obstet Gynecol1981;
139:799–814.
32.
WellsMOstorAGCrumCP, et al. Tumours of the uterine cervix. In: TavassoliFADevilleP, editors. Tumours of the breast and female genital organs.
Lyon, France:
IARC Press2003:277.
33.
Argüello-RamírezJPérez-CárdenasEDelgado-ChávezR, et alMatrix metalloproteinases-2, -3, and -9 secreted by explants of benign and malignant lesions of the uterine cervix. Int J Gynecol Cancer2004;
14:333–340.
34.
MengNWangXSunJ, et al.
Application of the amide proton transfer-weighted imaging and diffusion kurtosis imaging in the study of cervical cancer. Eur Radiol2020;
30:5758–5767.
