Functional MR imaging and the IQ-EMBRACE study

The complete study protocol can be found here.

Functional MR imaging in cervical cancer

Functional imaging that reflects hypoxia, metabolism, heamodynamics and tissue structure have been applied to locally advanced cervical cancer with the goal to identify imaging markers that may predict outcome early on and improve tissue classification. DCE-MRI may be the most investigated so far for locally advanced cervical cancer. A comprehensive literature review including papers investigating the prognostic value of DCE-MRI in patients with locally advanced cervical cancer identified 20 papers from 10 research groups, with a median number of 30 patients (range 7-102 patients). A total number of 17 papers publish a positive association between pre-treatment DCE-MRI and outcome in terms of local control or disease free survival (1–17). However, not all studies present independent cohorts of patients. Three papers show no effect (18–20). The studies on cervical cancer points in the direction that DCE-MRI has the capability to identify aggressive forms of cervical cancer, and that the pre-treatment measurements may serve as, predictive markers for outcome after chemo-radiotherapy. The largest studies indicate that in particular the tumour fraction with the lowest signal enhancement is an important parameter, though the diversity in methodology is significant.

Diffusion weighted MRI (DWI-MRI) has to a lesser extent than DCE-MRI been investigated in locally advanced cervical cancer. Most studies using DWI-MRI in cervical cancer have investigated its diagnostic capabilities (21–28) all concluding high sensitivity and specificity (review by Kundu et al. (29)). The Toronto group; McVeight et al. (26) and later Gladwish et al. (30) found prior to the onset of treatment that the highest 90th % ADC value correlated with response, similar finding was found by the group in Tianjin; Liu et al. (22). Both groups found that higher ADC value insides the tumour was predictive of poor response to treatment and suggest the higher ADC to be connected to tumour necrosis. When tumour necrosis, occur there is loss of cell membrane integrity and therefore an increase in the extracellular volume and a decrease in intracellular volume effectively increasing the ADC. Conversely, the group from London UK; Harry et al. (31) and Somoye et al. (32) showed no correlation to treatment response at the time prior to treatment. Instead the ADC at 2 weeks (and the change in ADC) into treatment was predictive of treatment response and prognostic of patient outcome. Finally, Marconi et al. (33) found a relation between minimum ADC in the tumor and both DSS and DFS.


To determine the prognostic value of multi-parametric quantitative imaging, consisting of DCE-MRI, DWI-MRI and quantitative T2 mapping, the IQ-EMBRACE study has started. This study will acquire standardized quantitative MRI techniques for patients enrolled in the EMBRACE II study, prior to the onset of treatment. The primary objective is to evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of dynamic contrast enhanced (DCE-MRI) to identify patients who have increased risk of disease recurrence (local, nodal, systemic) after radio-chemotherapy of cervix cancer. It is hypothesised that low perfusion in the primary tumour - as determined from DCE-MRI - is a risk factor for persistent and recurrent disease (local, nodal and systemic). The complete study protocol can be found here.

Quantitative MRI

Within the group of participating centers a wide variety in scanners exists, from different manufactures, field strengths, and ages. As a result, novel sequences may be available in one institute but not in another. One approach to achieve consistency between centers would be to specify the trial sequences in great detail. The drawback however is that this inevitably would force all participants to design sequences for the oldest platforms, resulting in relatively old, slow and possibly imprecise sequences. Therefore, a strategy has been adopted where each participating center can optimize quantitative sequences, making optimal use of the possibilities of their scanner.

A quality assurance procedure has been designed that consists of a series of measurements on phantoms, aimed to validate the accuracy and precision of the quantitative sequences proposed by each center for use in the clinical trial. The measurements are compared to ground-truth values available for the applicable phantoms. A description of the QA procedure can be found here.


1. Mayr NA, Huang Z, Wang JZ, Lo SS, Fan JM, Grecula JC, et al. Characterizing tumor heterogeneity with functional imaging and quantifying high-risk tumor volume for early prediction of treatment outcome: Cervical cancer as a model. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012;83(3):972–9.

2. Mayr NA, Wang JZ, Zhang D, Grecula JC, Lo SS, Jaroura D, et al. Longitudinal changes in tumor perfusion pattern during the radiation therapy course and its clinical impact in cervical cancer. IJROBP. 2010 Jun;77(2):502–8.

3. Andersen EKF, Hole KH, Lund K V, Sundfø¸r K, Kristensen GB, Lyng H, et al. Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced MRI of Cervical Cancers: Temporal Percentile Screening of Contrast Enhancement Identifies Parameters for Prediction of Chemoradioresistance. IJROBP. 2012;82(3):e485–92.

4. Loncaster J a, Carrington BM, Sykes JR, Jones AP, Todd SM, Cooper R, et al. Prediction of radiotherapy outcome using dynamic contrast enhanced MRI of carcinoma of the cervix. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2002;54(3):759–67.

5. Takayama Y, Ohno T, Kishimoto R, Kato S, Yoneyama R, Kandatsu S, et al. Prediction of early response to radiotherapy of uterine carcinoma with dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging using pixel analysis of MR perfusion imaging. Magn Reson Imaging. 2009;27(3):370–6.

6. Semple SIK, Harry VN, Parkin DE, Gilbert FJ. A combined pharmacokinetic and radiologic assessment of dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging predicts response to chemoradiation in locally advanced cervical cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2009;75(2):611–7.

7. Mayr NA, Yuh WT, Zheng J, Ehrhardt JC, Magnotta VA, Sorosky JI, et al. Prediction of tumor control in patients with cervical cancer: analysis of combined volume and dynamic enhancement pattern by MR imaging. Am J Roentgenol. 1998;170(1):177–82.

8. Mayr NA, Yuh WTC, Magnotta VA, Ehrhardt JC, Wheeler JA, Sorosky JI, et al. Tumor perfusion studies using fast magnetic resonance imaging technique in advanced cervical cancer: A new noninvasive predictive assay. IJROBP. 1996;36(3):623–33.

9. Mayr NA, Yuh WT, Arnholt JC, Ehrhardt JC, Sorosky JI, Magnotta VA, et al. Pixel analysis of MR perfusion imaging in predicting radiation therapy outcome in cervical cancer. JMRI. 2000 Dec;12(6):1027–33.

10. Mannelli L, Patterson AJ, Zahra M, Priest AN, Graves MJ, Lomas DJ, et al. Evaluation of nonenhancing tumor fraction assessed by dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI subtraction as a predictor of decrease in tumor volume in response to chemoradiotherapy in advanced cervical cancer. Am J Roentgenol. 2010;195(2):524–7.

11. Zahra MA, Tan LT, Priest AN, Graves MJ, Arends M, Crawford RAF, et al. Semiquantitative and Quantitative Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging Measurements Predict Radiation Response in Cervix Cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol. 2009;74(3):766–73.

12. Gong QY, Brunt JN, Romaniuk CS, Oakley JP, Tan LT, Roberts N, et al. Contrast enhanced dynamic MRI of cervical carcinoma during radiotherapy: early prediction of tumour regression rate. Br J Radiol. 1999;72(864):1177–84.

13. Andersen EKF, Kristensen GB, Lyng H, Malinen E. Pharmacokinetic analysis and k-means clustering of DCEMR images for radiotherapy outcome prediction of advanced cervical cancers. Acta Oncol. 2011 Aug;50(6):859–65.

14. Mayr NA, Wang JZ, Zhang D, Montebello JF, Grecula JC, Lo SS, et al. Synergistic Effects of Hemoglobin and Tumor Perfusion on Tumor Control and Survival in Cervical Cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2009;74(5):1513–21.

15. Huang Z, Yuh KA, Lo SS, Grecula JC, Sammet S, Sammet CL, et al. Validation of optimal DCE-MRI perfusion threshold to classify at-risk tumor imaging voxels in heterogeneous cervical cancer for outcome prediction. Magn Reson Imaging. 2014;32(10):1198–205.

16. Torheim T, Malinen E, Kvaal K, Lyng H, Indahl UG, Andersen EKF, et al. Classification of dynamic contrast enhanced MR images of cervical cancers using texture analysis and support vector machines. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2014;33(8):1648–56.

17. Donaldson SB, Buckley DL, O’Connor JP, Davidson SE, Carrington BM, Jones AP, et al. Enhancing fraction measured using dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI predicts disease-free survival in patients with carcinoma of the cervix. Br J Cancer. 2010;102(1):23–6.

18. Mayr NA, Yuh WTC, Jajoura D, Wang JZ, Lo SS, Montebello JF, et al. Ultra-early predictive assay for treatment failure using functional magnetic resonance imaging and clinical prognostic parameters in cervical cancer. Cancer. 2010 Feb;116(4):903–12.

19. Kim JH, Kim CK, Park BK, Park SY, Huh SJ, Kim B. Dynamic contrast-enhanced 3-T MR imaging in cervical cancer before and after concurrent chemoradiotherapy. Eur Radiol. 2012;22(11):2533–9.

20. Boss EA, Massuger LFAG, Pop LAM, Verhoef LCG, Huisman HJ, Boonstra H, et al. Post-radiotherapy contrast enhancement changes in fast dynamic MRI of cervical carcinoma. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2001;13(4):600–6.

21. Chen YB, Hu CM, Chen GL, Hu D, Liao J. Staging of uterine cervical carcinoma: whole-body diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging. Abdom Imaging. 2011;36(5):619–26.

22. Liu Y, Bai R, Sun H, Liu H, Wang D. Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging of uterine cervical cancer. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2009;33(6):858–62.

23. Naganawa S, Sato C, Kumada H, Ishigaki T, Miura S, Takizawa O. Apparent diffusion coefficient in cervical cancer of the uterus: comparison with the normal uterine cervix. Eur Radiol. 2005 Jan;15(1):71–8.

24. Kilickesmez O, Bayramoglu S, Inci E, Cimilli T, Kayhan A. Quantitative diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging of normal and diseased uterine zones. Acta Radiol. 2009 Apr;50(3):340–7.

25. Charles-Edwards EM, Messiou C, Morgan VA, Silva SS De, McWhinney NA, Katesmark M, et al. Diffusion-weighted imaging in cervical cancer with an endovaginal technique: potential value for improving tumor detection in stage Ia and Ib1 disease. Radiology. 2008 Nov;249(2):541–50.

26. McVeigh PZ, Syed AM, Milosevic M, Fyles A, Haider MA. Diffusion-weighted MRI in cervical cancer. Eur Radiol. 2008;18(5):1058–64.

27. Xue H-D, Li S, Sun F, Sun H-Y, Jin Z-Y, Yang J-X, et al. Clinical application of body diffusion weighted MR imaging in the diagnosis and preoperative N staging of cervical cancer. Chin Med Sci J. 2008 Sep;23(3):133–7.

28. Hoogendam JP, Klerkx WM, de Kort GAP, Bipat S, Zweemer RP, Sie-Go DMDS, et al. The influence of the b-value combination on apparent diffusion coefficient based differentiation between malignant and benign tissue in cervical cancer. JMRI. 2010 Aug;32(2):376–82.

29. Kundu S, Chopra S, Verma A, Mahantshetty U, Engineer R, Shrivastava SK. Functional magnetic resonance imaging in cervical cancer: current evidence and future directions. J Cancer Res Ther. 2012;8(1):11–8.

30. Gladwish A, Milosevic M, Fyles A, Xie J, Halankar J, Metser U, et al. Association of Apparent Diffusion Coefficient with Disease Recurrence in Patients with Locally Advanced Cervical Cancer Treated with Radical Chemotherapy and Radiation Therapy. Radiology [Internet]. 2015;150400. Available from:

31. Harry VN, Semple SI, Gilbert FJ, Parkin DE. Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging in the early detection of response to chemoradiation in cervical cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2008 Nov;111(2):213–20.

32. Somoye G, Harry V, Semple S, Plataniotis G, Scott N, Gilbert FJ, et al. Early diffusion weighted magnetic resonance imaging can predict survival in women with locally advanced cancer of the cervix treated with combined chemo-radiation. Eur Radiol. 2012 Nov;22(11):2319–27.

33. Marconi DG, Fregnani JHTG, Rossini RR, Netto AKBJ, Lucchesi FR, Tsunoda AT, et al. Pre-treatment MRI minimum apparent diffusion coefficient value is a potential prognostic imaging biomarker in cervical cancer patients treated with definitive chemoradiation. BMC Cancer. 2016;16(1):1–9.