OBJECTIVES: The potential diagnostic value of dual-energy computed tomography (DE-CT) compared to dynamic contrast-enhanced CT (DCE-CT) and conventional contrast-enhanced CT (CE-CT) in the assessment of early regorafenib treatment effects was evaluated in a preclinical setting. METHODS: A rat GS9L glioma model was examined with contrast-enhanced dynamic DE-CT measurements (80 kV/140 kV) for 4 min before and on days 1 and 4 after the start of daily regorafenib or placebo treatment. Tumour time-density curves (0-240 s, 80 kV), DE-CT (60 s) derived iodine maps and the DCE-CT (0-30 s, 80 kV) based parameters blood flow (BF), blood volume (BV) and permeability (PMB) were calculated and compared to conventional CE-CT (60 s, 80 kV). RESULTS: The regorafenib group showed a marked decrease in the tumour time-density curve, a significantly lower iodine concentration and a significantly lower PMB on day 1 and 4 compared to baseline, which was not observed for the placebo group. CE-CT showed a significant decrease in tumour density on day 4 but not on day 1. The DE-CT-derived iodine concentrations correlated with PMB and BV but not with BF. CONCLUSIONS: DE-CT allows early treatment monitoring, which correlates with DCE-CT. Superior performance was observed compared to single-energy CE-CT. KEY POINTS: • Regorafenib treatment response was evaluated by CT in a rat tumour model. • Dual-energy contrast-enhanced CT allows early treatment monitoring of targeted anti-tumour therapies. • Dual-energy CT showed higher diagnostic potential than conventional contrast enhanced single-energy CT. • Dual-energy CT showed diagnostic potential comparable to dynamic contrast-enhanced CT. • Dual-energy CT is a promising method for efficient clinical treatment response evaluation.
OBJECTIVES: The potential diagnostic value of dual-energy computed tomography (DE-CT) compared to dynamic contrast-enhanced CT (DCE-CT) and conventional contrast-enhanced CT (CE-CT) in the assessment of early regorafenib treatment effects was evaluated in a preclinical setting. METHODS: A rat GS9L glioma model was examined with contrast-enhanced dynamic DE-CT measurements (80 kV/140 kV) for 4 min before and on days 1 and 4 after the start of daily regorafenib or placebo treatment. Tumour time-density curves (0-240 s, 80 kV), DE-CT (60 s) derived iodine maps and the DCE-CT (0-30 s, 80 kV) based parameters blood flow (BF), blood volume (BV) and permeability (PMB) were calculated and compared to conventional CE-CT (60 s, 80 kV). RESULTS: The regorafenib group showed a marked decrease in the tumour time-density curve, a significantly lower iodine concentration and a significantly lower PMB on day 1 and 4 compared to baseline, which was not observed for the placebo group. CE-CT showed a significant decrease in tumour density on day 4 but not on day 1. The DE-CT-derived iodine concentrations correlated with PMB and BV but not with BF. CONCLUSIONS: DE-CT allows early treatment monitoring, which correlates with DCE-CT. Superior performance was observed compared to single-energy CE-CT. KEY POINTS: • Regorafenib treatment response was evaluated by CT in a rattumour model. • Dual-energy contrast-enhanced CT allows early treatment monitoring of targeted anti-tumour therapies. • Dual-energy CT showed higher diagnostic potential than conventional contrast enhanced single-energy CT. • Dual-energy CT showed diagnostic potential comparable to dynamic contrast-enhanced CT. • Dual-energy CT is a promising method for efficient clinical treatment response evaluation.
Authors: P Therasse; S G Arbuck; E A Eisenhauer; J Wanders; R S Kaplan; L Rubinstein; J Verweij; M Van Glabbeke; A T van Oosterom; M C Christian; S G Gwyther Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2000-02-02 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Andreas H Mahnken; Ernst Klotz; Hubertus Pietsch; Bernhard Schmidt; Thomas Allmendinger; Ulrike Haberland; Willi A Kalender; Thomas Flohr Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2010-06 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: Tobias De Zordo; Klemens von Lutterotti; Christian Dejaco; Peter F Soegner; Renate Frank; Friedrich Aigner; Andrea S Klauser; Christoph Pechlaner; U Joseph Schoepf; Werner R Jaschke; Gudrun M Feuchtner Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2011-08-28 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Robert J Motzer; Thomas E Hutson; Piotr Tomczak; M Dror Michaelson; Ronald M Bukowski; Olivier Rixe; Stéphane Oudard; Sylvie Negrier; Cezary Szczylik; Sindy T Kim; Isan Chen; Paul W Bycott; Charles M Baum; Robert A Figlin Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2007-01-11 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Vicky Goh; Steve Halligan; Frances Daley; David M Wellsted; Thomas Guenther; Clive I Bartram Journal: Radiology Date: 2008-09-23 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Wolfgang M Thaiss; Ulrike Haberland; Sascha Kaufmann; Daniel Spira; Christoph Thomas; Konstantin Nikolaou; Marius Horger; Alexander W Sauter Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2015-12-17 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Robbert W van Hamersvelt; Martin J Willemink; Pim A de Jong; Julien Milles; Alain Vlassenbroek; Arnold M R Schilham; Tim Leiner Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2017-01-25 Impact factor: 5.315