Preliminary study on the value of high-order functional magnetic resonance imaging in the evaluation of bone and soft tissue tumors

doi:10.3969/j.issn.1674-8115.2025.05.007

Abstract

Abstract:

Objective ·To preliminarily investigate the value of high-order functional magnetic resonance imaging in the evaluation of benign and malignant bone and soft tissue tumors and the changes after chemotherapy. Methods ·Patients clinically diagnosed with bone and soft tissue tumors at the Department of Orthopaedics, Shanghai Ninth People 's Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, from October 2014 to December 2024 were enrolled. The patients were divided into a control group and an amide proton transfer-weighted imaging (APTw) group according to the imaging method. All patients underwent conventional magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI), and dynamic contrast-enhanced imaging (DCE) before surgery. Patients in the APTw group received additional APTw imaging. Both groups were divided into non-malignant and malignant lesion subgroups according to pathological results. According to whether the patients received chemotherapy before enrollment, the patients with malignant lesions in the APTw group were further divided into malignant group without chemotherapy and malignant group with chemotherapy. Clinical and imaging data, including APT values, apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC), and time-intensity curves (TICs) from the largest tumor section, were collected and analyzed to assess the diagnostic performance of APTw, DWI, and DCE, and to evaluate changes after chemotherapy. Results ·Eighty-five patients were enrolled, including 51 males and 34 females, with ages ranging from 10 to 84 years, and a mean age of (43.05±17.62) years. There were 51 patients in the control group (16 with non-malignant lesions and 35 with malignant lesions) and 34 patients in the APTw group (5 with non-malignant lesions and 29 with malignant lesions; 23 malignant lesions without chemotherapy and 6 malignant lesions with chemotherapy). The clinical and imaging data showed that only the tumor margin of the control group and the maximum tumor diameter of the APTw group had statistically significant differences in their malignant and non-malignant lesion groups ( P<0.05). In the APTw group, there was a statistically significant difference in APT values between the malignant lesion group and the non-malignant lesion group ( P<0.001). Further analysis showed that the APT values in the malignant group without chemotherapy were significantly lower than that in the malignant group with chemotherapy ( P<0.001). However, there were no statistically significant differences in APT values between the malignant group with chemotherapy and the non-malignant lesion group ( P>0.05). There were no significant differences in ADC values and TIC types between malignant and non-malignant lesion groups in the control group and the APTw group ( P>0.05). The area under the curve (AUC) of the diagnostic model in the APTw group (MRI+DWI+DCE+APTw) for distinguishing malignant from benign tumors was significantly higher than that of the control group (MRI+DWI+DCE) ( P<0.05). The Youden index and specificity of the diagnostic model in the APTw group were higher than those in the control group. Conclusion ·As a high-order functional MRI technique, APTw imaging is capable of evaluating the nature (benign or malignant) of bone and soft tissue tumors and detecting changes after chemotherapy. It serves as a valuable supplement to conventional MRI, DWI, and DCE imaging, providing a novel noninvasive tool for the diagnosis and treatment evaluation of bone and soft tissue tumors.

Key words: bone neoplasm, soft tissue neoplasm, amide proton transfer, diffusion magnetic resonance imaging, neoadjuvant therapy

CLC Number:

R445.2

ZHANG Zhengjia, LI Xiaomin, ZHOU Xin, MA Hairong, AI Songtao. Preliminary study on the value of high-order functional magnetic resonance imaging in the evaluation of bone and soft tissue tumors[J]. Journal of Shanghai Jiao Tong University (Medical Science), 2025, 45(5): 585-596.

Figures/Tables 11

TrendMD

References 49

1	CHOI J H, RO J Y. The 2020 WHO classification of tumors of bone: an updated review[J]. Adv Anat Pathol, 2021, 28(3): 119-138.
2	CHOI J H, RO J Y. The 2020 WHO classification of tumors of soft tissue: selected changes and new entities[J]. Adv Anat Pathol, 2021, 28(1): 44-58.
3	WANG Y A, YAN Q J, FAN C M, et al. Overview and countermeasures of cancer burden in China[J]. Sci China Life Sci, 2023, 66(11): 2515-2526.
4	COLE S, MATTHEW GIANFERANTE D, ZHU B, et al. Osteosarcoma: a surveillance, epidemiology, and end results program-based analysis from 1975 to 2017[J]. Cancer, 2022, 128(11): 2107-2118.
5	JAFARI F, JAVDANSIRAT S, SANAIE S, et al. Osteosarcoma: a comprehensive review of management and treatment strategies[J]. Ann Diagn Pathol, 2020, 49: 151654.
6	KUNISADA T, NAKATA E, FUJIWARA T, et al. Soft-tissue sarcoma in adolescents and young adults[J]. Int J Clin Oncol, 2023, 28(1): 1-11.
7	CHOI J H, RO J Y. The recent advances in molecular diagnosis of soft tissue tumors[J]. Int J Mol Sci, 2023, 24(6): 5934.
8	TANAKA K, OZAKI T. Adjuvant and neoadjuvant chemotherapy for soft tissue sarcomas: JCOG Bone and Soft Tissue Tumor Study Group[J]. Jpn J Clin Oncol, 2021, 51(2): 180-184.
9	YUAN W Z, YU Q Y, WANG Z, et al. Efficacy of diffusion-weighted imaging in neoadjuvant chemotherapy for osteosarcoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis[J]. Acad Radiol, 2022, 29(2): 326-334.
10	HABRE C, DABADIE A, LOUNDOU A D, et al. Diffusion-weighted imaging in differentiating mid-course responders to chemotherapy for long-bone osteosarcoma compared to the histologic response: an update[J]. Pediatr Radiol, 2021, 51(9): 1714-1723.
11	GUEDES A, NAKAGAWA S A. Biopsy of bone tumors: a literature review[J]. Rev Assoc Med Bras (1992), 2024, 70(suppl 1): e2024S131.
12	WHELAN J S, DAVIS L E. Osteosarcoma, chondrosarcoma, and chordoma[J]. J Clin Oncol, 2018, 36(2): 188-193.
13	LI J L, XU Y, XIANG Y S, et al. The value of amide proton transfer MRI in the diagnosis of malignant and benign urinary bladder lesions: comparison with diffusion-weighted imaging[J]. J Magn Reson Imaging, 2024, 60(3): 1124-1133.
14	SETIAWATI R, NOVARIYANTO B, RAHARDJO P, et al. Characteristic of apparent diffusion coefficient and time intensity curve analysis of dynamic contrast enhanced MRI in osteosarcoma histopathologic subtypes[J]. Int J Med Sci, 2023, 20(2): 163-171.
15	COSTA F M, CANELLA C, GASPARETTO E. Advanced magnetic resonance imaging techniques in the evaluation of musculoskeletal tumors[J]. Radiol Clin North Am, 2011, 49(6): 1325-1358, Ⅶ-Ⅷ.
16	KHALIFA F, SOLIMAN A, EL-BAZ A, et al. Models and methods for analyzing DCE-MRI: a review[J]. Med Phys, 2014, 41(12): 124301.
17	赵傲, 武新英, 付彤, 等. DWI、DCE联合APT成像在鉴别乳腺良恶性病变中的价值研究[J]. 中国医疗设备, 2024, 39(6): 124-130, 155.
	ZHAO A, WU X Y, FU T, et al. Value of DWI, DCE and APT imaging in identifying benign and malignant breast lesions[J]. China Medical Devices, 2024, 39(6): 124-130, 155.
18	KUANG F, YAN Z P, LI H L, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of diffusion-weighted MRI for differentiation of cervical cancer and benign cervical lesions at 3.0T: comparison with routine MRI and dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI[J]. J Magn Reson Imaging, 2015, 42(4): 1094-1099.
19	ZHOU J Y, HEO H Y, KNUTSSON L, et al. APT-weighted MRI: techniques, current neuro applications, and challenging issues[J]. J Magn Reson Imaging, 2019, 50(2): 347-364.
20	WU M H, JIANG T L, GUO M, et al. Amide proton transfer-weighted imaging and derived radiomics in the classification of adult-type diffuse gliomas[J]. Eur Radiol, 2024, 34(5): 2986-2996.
21	LI Y, LIN C Y, QI Y F, et al. Non-invasive differentiation of endometrial adenocarcinoma from benign lesions in the uterus by utilization of amide proton transfer-weighted MRI[J]. Mol Imaging Biol, 2021, 23(3): 446-455.
22	LIU Z, WEN J, WANG M, et al. Breast amide proton transfer imaging at 3 T: diagnostic performance and association with pathologic characteristics[J]. J Magn Reson Imaging, 2023, 57(3): 824-833.
23	DENG H Z, ZHANG H W, HUANG B, et al. Advances in diffuse glioma assessment: preoperative and postoperative applications of chemical exchange saturation transfer[J]. Front Neurosci, 2024, 18: 1424316.
24	QAMAR S, KING A D, AI Q H, et al. Pre-treatment amide proton transfer imaging predicts treatment outcome in nasopharyngeal carcinoma[J]. Eur Radiol, 2020, 30(11): 6339-6347.
25	ZHANG N, SONG Q W, LIANG H B, et al. Early prediction of pathological response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy of breast tumors: a comparative study using amide proton transfer-weighted, diffusion weighted and dynamic contrast enhanced MRI[J]. Front Med (Lausanne), 2024, 11: 1295478.
26	史天亮, 杨崇双, 刘元早, 等. APT成像在宫颈癌同步根治性放化疗疗效评估中的价值[J]. 磁共振成像, 2024, 15(1): 132-136.
	SHI T L, YANG C S, LIU Y Z, et al. The value of APT imaging in evaluating the therapeutic efficacy of concurrent chemoradiotherapy for cervical cancer[J]. Chinese Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging, 2024, 15(1): 132-136.
27	刘斯润, 蔡香然, 邱麟. 新版（2020）WHO骨肿瘤分类解读[J]. 磁共振成像, 2020, 11(12): 1086-1091.
	LIU S R, CAI X R, QIU L. Interpretation of the new WHO classification of bone tumors (2020) [J]. Chinese Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging, 2020, 11(12): 1086-1091.
28	方三高, 魏建国, 陈真伟. WHO（2020）软组织肿瘤分类[J]. 临床与实验病理学杂志, 2020, 36(9): 1132-1134.
	FANG S G, WEI J G, CHEN Z W. WHO classification of soft tissue tumors (2020) [J]. Chinese Journal of Clinical and Experimental Pathology, 2020, 36(9): 1132-1134.
29	YABUUCHI H, FUKUYA T, TAJIMA T, et al. Salivary gland tumors: diagnostic value of gadolinium-enhanced dynamic MR imaging with histopathologic correlation[J]. Radiology, 2003, 226(2): 345-354.
30	CHOI Y J, LEE I S, SONG Y S, et al. Diagnostic performance of diffusion-weighted (DWI) and dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) MRI for the differentiation of benign from malignant soft-tissue tumors[J]. J Magn Reson Imaging, 2019, 50(3): 798-809.
31	HAYAKAWA K, MATSUMOTO S, AE K, et al. Definitive surgery of primary lesion should be prioritized over preoperative chemotherapy to treat high-grade osteosarcoma in patients aged 41‒65 years[J]. J Orthop Traumatol, 2020, 21(1): 13.
32	CAO Z Y, ZHANG Y L, XU Q, et al. The role of chemotherapy in the survival benefits of patients aged older than 40 years with osteosarcoma[J]. Technol Cancer Res Treat, 2021, 20: 15330338211066195.
33	GUO Z X, QIN X Y, MU R H, et al. Amide proton transfer could provide more accurate lesion characterization in the transition zone of the prostate[J]. J Magn Reson Imaging, 2022, 56(5): 1311-1319.
34	GAO Y T, ZHOU H, LIU G G, et al. Tumor microenvironment: lactic acid promotes tumor development[J]. J Immunol Res, 2022, 2022: 3119375.
35	TOGAO O, YOSHIURA T, KEUPP J, et al. Amide proton transfer imaging of adult diffuse gliomas: correlation with histopathological grades[J]. Neuro Oncol, 2014, 16(3): 441-448.
36	MENG N, WANG X J, SUN J, et al. Comparative study of amide proton transfer-weighted imaging and intravoxel incoherent motion imaging in breast cancer diagnosis and evaluation[J]. J Magn Reson Imaging, 2020, 52(4): 1175-1186.
37	KOIKE H, MORIKAWA M, ISHIMARU H, et al. Amide proton transfer-chemical exchange saturation transfer imaging of intracranial brain tumors and tumor-like lesions: our experience and a review[J]. Diagnostics (Basel), 2023, 13(5): 914.
38	YANG L, WANG L, TAN Y C, et al. Amide Proton Transfer-weighted MRI combined with serum prostate-specific antigen levels for differentiating malignant prostate lesions from benign prostate lesions: a retrospective cohort study[J]. Cancer Imaging, 2023, 23(1): 3.
39	JIA G, ABAZA R, WILLIAMS J D, et al. Amide proton transfer MR imaging of prostate cancer: a preliminary study[J]. J Magn Reson Imaging, 2011, 33(3): 647-654.
40	ZHANG H W, LIU X L, ZHANG H B, et al. Differentiation of meningiomas and gliomas by amide proton transfer imaging: a preliminary study of brain tumour infiltration[J]. Front Oncol, 2022, 12: 886968.
41	李莹, 程敬亮, 任翠萍, 等. 3D氨基质子转移加权成像联合弥散加权成像鉴别良、恶性骨与软组织肿瘤[J]. 中国医学影像技术, 2024, 40(10): 1572-1576.
	LI Y,CHENG J L, REN C P, et al. 3D amide proton transfer weighted imaging combined with diffusion weighted imaging for differentiating benign and malignant bone and soft tissue tumors[J]. Chinese Journal of Medical Imaging Technology, 2024, 40(10): 1572-1576.
42	LI Y, LIN L J, ZHANG Y, et al. Preliminary exploration of amide proton transfer weighted imaging in differentiation between benign and malignant bone tumors[J]. Front Oncol, 2024, 14: 1402628.
43	刘记存, 崔建岭, 李石玲, 等. 表观扩散系数值鉴别良恶性骨肿瘤及肿瘤样病变的价值[J]. 中华放射学杂志, 2009, 43(6): 567-570.
	LIU J C, CUI J L, LI S L, et al. The role of apparent diffusion coefficient in the differentiation between benign and malignant bone tumors[J]. Chinese Journal of Radiology, 2009, 43(6): 567-570.
44	HAYASHIDA Y, HIRAI T, YAKUSHIJI T, et al. Evaluation of diffusion-weighted imaging for the differential diagnosis of poorly contrast-enhanced and T2-prolonged bone masses: initial experience[J]. J Magn Reson Imaging, 2006, 23(3): 377-382.
45	WANG T T, WU X R, CUI Y F, et al. Role of apparent diffusion coefficients with diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging in differentiating between benign and malignant bone tumors[J]. World J Surg Oncol, 2014, 12: 365.
46	王绍武, 孙美玉, 张丽娜, 等. 骨肿瘤的MR灌注和扩散加权成像研究[J]. 国际医学放射学杂志, 2008, 31(1): 6-10.
	WANG S W, SUN M Y, ZHANG L N, et al. MR perfusion and diffusion imaging in diagnosing benign and malignant bone tumors[J]. International Journal of Medical Radiology, 2008, 31(1): 6-10.
47	HISATOMI M, ASAUMI J I, YANAGI Y, et al. Diagnostic value of dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI in the salivary gland tumors[J]. Oral Oncol, 2007, 43(9): 940-947.
48	ZHOU J Y, ZAISS M, KNUTSSON L, et al. Review and consensus recommendations on clinical APT-weighted imaging approaches at 3T: application to brain tumors[J]. Magn Reson Med, 2022, 88(2): 546-574.
49	GUO H, LIU J, HU J J, et al. Diagnostic performance of gliomas grading and IDH status decoding A comparison between 3D amide proton transfer APT and four diffusion-weighted MRI models[J]. J Magn Reson Imaging, 2022, 56(6): 1834-1844.

Parameter	T1WI	T2WI	T2-SPAIR	DWI	DCE	APTw
Sequence	TSE	TSE	TSE	EPI	TSE	TSE
Plane	Axial	Axial	Coronal	Axial	Axial	Axial
Fat saturation	NO	NO	SPAIR	SPAIR	NO	SPIR
Time to repeat/ms	672	3 000	3 200	3 048	638	7 300
Time to echo/ms	13	75	60	56	15	8.3
Thickness/mm	4	4	4	5	4	6
FOV/mm	250×400	300×379	280×350	300×450	300×379	230×180
Matrix	312×418	352×375	352×368	152×197	352×402	128×100
Slice gap/mm	0.4	0.4	0.4	0.5	0.4	0
NSA	1	1	1	1	1	1
b value/(s·mm ^-2)	‒	‒	‒	0, 1 000	‒	‒
Scan time	2 min 5 s	2 min 30 s	2 min 14 s	1 min 41 s	2 min 32 s	3 min 37 s

Parameter	T1WI	T2WI	T2-SPAIR	DWI	DCE	APTw
Sequence	TSE	TSE	TSE	EPI	TSE	TSE
Plane	Axial	Axial	Coronal	Axial	Axial	Axial
Fat saturation	NO	NO	SPAIR	SPAIR	NO	SPIR
Time to repeat/ms	672	3 000	3 200	3 048	638	7 300
Time to echo/ms	13	75	60	56	15	8.3
Thickness/mm	4	4	4	5	4	6
FOV/mm	250×400	300×379	280×350	300×450	300×379	230×180
Matrix	312×418	352×375	352×368	152×197	352×402	128×100
Slice gap/mm	0.4	0.4	0.4	0.5	0.4	0
NSA	1	1	1	1	1	1
b value/(s·mm ^-2)	‒	‒	‒	0, 1 000	‒	‒
Scan time	2 min 5 s	2 min 30 s	2 min 14 s	1 min 41 s	2 min 32 s	3 min 37 s

Variable	Control group ( n=51)			APTw group ( n=34)			P value
Variable	Non-malignant lesion ( n=16)	Malignant lesion ( n=35)	P value	Non-malignant lesion ( n=5)	Malignant lesion ( n=29)	P value	P value
Gender/ n(%)			0.068			0.618	0.119
Male	5 (31.3)	22 (62.9)		3 (60.0)	21 (72.4)
Female	11 (68.8)	13 (37.1)		2 (40.0)	8 (27.6)
Age/year	39.00±12.87	47.40±17.57	0.111	41.80±12.46	40.24±20.10	0.925	0.317
Maximum diameter/cm	4.80 (5.28)	7.69±3.13	0.082	4.24±0.83	8.14±4.33	0.038	0.986
Margin/ n(%)			0.001			0.146	0.509
Clear	14 (87.5)	13 (37.1)		4 (80.0)	11 (37.9)
Unclear	2 (12.5)	22 (62.9)		1 (20.0)	18 (62.1)
Signal/ n(%)			0.187			0.570	0.624
Homogeneous	7 (43.8)	8 (22.9)		2 (40.0)	6 (20.7)
Heterogeneous	9 (56.3)	27 (77.1)		3 (60.0)	23 (79.3)
Shape/ n(%)			0.157			0.205	0.595
Regular	6 (37.5)	6 (17.1)		2 (40.0)	4 (13.8)
Irregular	10 (62.5)	29 (82.9)		3 (60.0)	25 (86.2)
Peritumoral edema/ n(%)			0.115			0.591	0.632
No	8 (50.0)	9 (25.7)		2 (40.0)	7 (24.1)
Yes	8 (50.0)	26 (74.3)		3 (60.0)	22 (75.9)
Cortical bone destruction/ n(%)			1.000			1.000	0.257
No	1 (6.3)	2 (5.7)		1 (20.0)	4 (13.8)
Yes	15 (93.8)	33 (94.3)		4 (80.0)	25 (86.2)

Variable	Control group ( n=51)			APTw group ( n=34)			P value
Variable	Non-malignant lesion ( n=16)	Malignant lesion ( n=35)	P value	Non-malignant lesion ( n=5)	Malignant lesion ( n=29)	P value	P value
Gender/ n(%)			0.068			0.618	0.119
Male	5 (31.3)	22 (62.9)		3 (60.0)	21 (72.4)
Female	11 (68.8)	13 (37.1)		2 (40.0)	8 (27.6)
Age/year	39.00±12.87	47.40±17.57	0.111	41.80±12.46	40.24±20.10	0.925	0.317
Maximum diameter/cm	4.80 (5.28)	7.69±3.13	0.082	4.24±0.83	8.14±4.33	0.038	0.986
Margin/ n(%)			0.001			0.146	0.509
Clear	14 (87.5)	13 (37.1)		4 (80.0)	11 (37.9)
Unclear	2 (12.5)	22 (62.9)		1 (20.0)	18 (62.1)
Signal/ n(%)			0.187			0.570	0.624
Homogeneous	7 (43.8)	8 (22.9)		2 (40.0)	6 (20.7)
Heterogeneous	9 (56.3)	27 (77.1)		3 (60.0)	23 (79.3)
Shape/ n(%)			0.157			0.205	0.595
Regular	6 (37.5)	6 (17.1)		2 (40.0)	4 (13.8)
Irregular	10 (62.5)	29 (82.9)		3 (60.0)	25 (86.2)
Peritumoral edema/ n(%)			0.115			0.591	0.632
No	8 (50.0)	9 (25.7)		2 (40.0)	7 (24.1)
Yes	8 (50.0)	26 (74.3)		3 (60.0)	22 (75.9)
Cortical bone destruction/ n(%)			1.000			1.000	0.257
No	1 (6.3)	2 (5.7)		1 (20.0)	4 (13.8)
Yes	15 (93.8)	33 (94.3)		4 (80.0)	25 (86.2)

Variable	Radiologist 1	Radiologist 2	ICC/ κ	95% CI
APT	2.50% (1.23%)	2.63% (1.09%)	0.977	0.954‒0.988
ADC/(10 ^-3·mm ²·s ^-1)	1.01 (0.67)	1.08 (0.69)	0.964	0.929‒0.982
TIC (Ⅰ/Ⅱ/Ⅲ)/ n(%)	17 (50.0)/14 (41.2)/3 (8.8)	16 (47.1)/15 (44.1)/3 (8.8)	0.847	0.678‒1.000