PURPOSE: To compare pathology macroscopic tumor dimensions with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) measurements and to establish the microscopic tumor extension of colorectal liver metastases. METHODS AND MATERIALS: In a prospective pilot study we included patients with colorectal liver metastases planned for surgery and eligible for MRI. A liver MRI was performed within 48 hours before surgery. Directly after surgery, an MRI of the specimen was acquired to measure the degree of tumor shrinkage. The specimen was fixed in formalin for 48 hours, and another MRI was performed to assess the specimen/tumor shrinkage. All MRI sequences were imported into our radiotherapy treatment planning system, where the tumor and the specimen were delineated. For the macroscopic pathology analyses, photographs of the sliced specimens were used to delineate and reconstruct the tumor and the specimen volumes. Microscopic pathology analyses were conducted to assess the infiltration depth of tumor cell nests. RESULTS: Between February 2009 and January 2010 we included 13 patients for analysis with 21 colorectal liver metastases. Specimen and tumor shrinkage after resection and fixation was negligible. The best tumor volume correlations between MRI and pathology were found for T1-weighted (w) echo gradient sequence (r(s) = 0.99, slope = 1.06), and the T2-w fast spin echo (FSE) single-shot sequence (r(s) = 0.99, slope = 1.08), followed by the T2-w FSE fat saturation sequence (r(s) = 0.99, slope = 1.23), and the T1-w gadolinium-enhanced sequence (r(s) = 0.98, slope = 1.24). We observed 39 tumor cell nests beyond the tumor border in 12 metastases. Microscopic extension was found between 0.2 and 10 mm from the main tumor, with 90% of the cases within 6 mm. CONCLUSIONS: MRI tumor dimensions showed a good agreement with the macroscopic pathology suggesting that MRI can be used for accurate tumor delineation. However, microscopic extensions found beyond the tumor border indicate that caution is needed in selecting appropriate tumor margins.
PURPOSE: To compare pathology macroscopic tumor dimensions with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) measurements and to establish the microscopic tumor extension of colorectal liver metastases. METHODS AND MATERIALS: In a prospective pilot study we included patients with colorectal liver metastases planned for surgery and eligible for MRI. A liver MRI was performed within 48 hours before surgery. Directly after surgery, an MRI of the specimen was acquired to measure the degree of tumor shrinkage. The specimen was fixed in formalin for 48 hours, and another MRI was performed to assess the specimen/tumor shrinkage. All MRI sequences were imported into our radiotherapy treatment planning system, where the tumor and the specimen were delineated. For the macroscopic pathology analyses, photographs of the sliced specimens were used to delineate and reconstruct the tumor and the specimen volumes. Microscopic pathology analyses were conducted to assess the infiltration depth of tumor cell nests. RESULTS: Between February 2009 and January 2010 we included 13 patients for analysis with 21 colorectal liver metastases. Specimen and tumor shrinkage after resection and fixation was negligible. The best tumor volume correlations between MRI and pathology were found for T1-weighted (w) echo gradient sequence (r(s) = 0.99, slope = 1.06), and the T2-w fast spin echo (FSE) single-shot sequence (r(s) = 0.99, slope = 1.08), followed by the T2-w FSE fat saturation sequence (r(s) = 0.99, slope = 1.23), and the T1-w gadolinium-enhanced sequence (r(s) = 0.98, slope = 1.24). We observed 39 tumor cell nests beyond the tumor border in 12 metastases. Microscopic extension was found between 0.2 and 10 mm from the main tumor, with 90% of the cases within 6 mm. CONCLUSIONS: MRI tumor dimensions showed a good agreement with the macroscopic pathology suggesting that MRI can be used for accurate tumor delineation. However, microscopic extensions found beyond the tumor border indicate that caution is needed in selecting appropriate tumor margins.
Authors: Judit Boda-Heggemann; Anika Jahnke; Mark K H Chan; Leila S Ghaderi Ardekani; Peter Hunold; Jost Philipp Schäfer; Stefan Huttenlocher; Stefan Wurster; Dirk Rades; Guido Hildebrandt; Frank Lohr; Jürgen Dunst; Frederik Wenz; Oliver Blanck Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2018-02-05 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: Alejandra Méndez Romero; Fatma Keskin-Cambay; Rob M van Os; Joost J Nuyttens; Ben J M Heijmen; Jan N M IJzermans; Cornelis Verhoef Journal: Rep Pract Oncol Radiother Date: 2016-12-02
Authors: Morten Høyer; Maria Thor; Sara Thörnqvist; Jimmi Søndergaard; Yasmin Lassen-Ramshad; Ludvig Paul Muren Journal: Cancer Imaging Date: 2011-10-03 Impact factor: 3.909
Authors: Thu Tran; Chandru P Sundaram; Clinton D Bahler; John N Eble; David J Grignon; M Francesca Monn; Novae B Simper; Liang Cheng Journal: J Cancer Date: 2015-07-02 Impact factor: 4.207
Authors: Nicolaus Andratschke; Alan Parys; Susanne Stadtfeld; Stefan Wurster; Stefan Huttenlocher; Detlef Imhoff; Müjdat Yildirim; Dirk Rades; Claus Michael Rödel; Jürgen Dunst; Guido Hildebrandt; Oliver Blanck Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2016-05-28 Impact factor: 3.481