OBJECTIVES: This study evaluated the predictive role of 1D, 2D and 3D quantitative, enhancement-based MRI regarding overall survival (OS) in patients with colorectal liver metastases (CLM) following intra-arterial therapies (IAT). METHODS: This retrospective analysis included 29 patients who underwent transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) or radioembolization and received MRI within 6 weeks after therapy. Tumour response was assessed using 1D and 2D criteria (such as European Association for the Study of the Liver guidelines [EASL] and modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors [mRECIST]). In addition, a segmentation-based 3D quantification of overall (volumetric [v] RECIST) and enhancing lesion volume (quantitative [q] EASL) was performed on portal venous phase MRI. Accordingly, patients were classified as responders (R) and non-responders (NR). Survival was evaluated using Kaplan-Meier analysis and compared using Cox proportional hazard ratios (HR). RESULTS: Only enhancement-based criteria identified patients as responders. EASL and mRECIST did not predict patient survival (P = 0.27 and P = 0.44, respectively). Using uni- and multivariate analysis, qEASL was identified as the sole predictor of patient survival (9.9 months for R, 6.9 months for NR; P = 0.038; HR 0.4). CONCLUSION: The ability of qEASL to predict survival early after IAT provides evidence for potential advantages of 3D quantitative tumour analysis. KEY POINTS: • Volumetric assessment of colorectal liver metastases after intra-arterial therapy is feasible. • Early 3D quantitative tumour analysis after intra-arterial therapy may predict patient survival. • Volumetric tumour response assessment shows advantages over 1D and 2D techniques. • Enhancement-based MR response assessment is preferable to size-based measurements.
OBJECTIVES: This study evaluated the predictive role of 1D, 2D and 3D quantitative, enhancement-based MRI regarding overall survival (OS) in patients with colorectal liver metastases (CLM) following intra-arterial therapies (IAT). METHODS: This retrospective analysis included 29 patients who underwent transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) or radioembolization and received MRI within 6 weeks after therapy. Tumour response was assessed using 1D and 2D criteria (such as European Association for the Study of the Liver guidelines [EASL] and modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors [mRECIST]). In addition, a segmentation-based 3D quantification of overall (volumetric [v] RECIST) and enhancing lesion volume (quantitative [q] EASL) was performed on portal venous phase MRI. Accordingly, patients were classified as responders (R) and non-responders (NR). Survival was evaluated using Kaplan-Meier analysis and compared using Cox proportional hazard ratios (HR). RESULTS: Only enhancement-based criteria identified patients as responders. EASL and mRECIST did not predict patient survival (P = 0.27 and P = 0.44, respectively). Using uni- and multivariate analysis, qEASL was identified as the sole predictor of patient survival (9.9 months for R, 6.9 months for NR; P = 0.038; HR 0.4). CONCLUSION: The ability of qEASL to predict survival early after IAT provides evidence for potential advantages of 3D quantitative tumour analysis. KEY POINTS: • Volumetric assessment of colorectal liver metastases after intra-arterial therapy is feasible. • Early 3D quantitative tumour analysis after intra-arterial therapy may predict patient survival. • Volumetric tumour response assessment shows advantages over 1D and 2D techniques. • Enhancement-based MR response assessment is preferable to size-based measurements.
Authors: Ahsun Riaz; Khairuddin Memon; Frank H Miller; Paul Nikolaidis; Laura M Kulik; Robert J Lewandowski; Robert K Ryu; Kent T Sato; Vanessa L Gates; Mary F Mulcahy; Talia Baker; Ed Wang; Ramona Gupta; Ritu Nayar; Al B Benson; Michael Abecassis; Reed Omary; Riad Salem Journal: J Hepatol Date: 2010-10-23 Impact factor: 25.083
Authors: David Cunningham; Wendy Atkin; Heinz-Josef Lenz; Henry T Lynch; Bruce Minsky; Bernard Nordlinger; Naureen Starling Journal: Lancet Date: 2010-03-20 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Fernanda D Gonzalez-Guindalini; Marcos P F Botelho; Carla B Harmath; Kumaresan Sandrasegaran; Frank H Miller; Riad Salem; Vahid Yaghmai Journal: Radiographics Date: 2013-10 Impact factor: 5.333
Authors: T F Jakobs; K J Paprottka; F Raeßler; F Strobl; S Lehner; H Ilhan; C G Trumm; W P Fendler; W Sommer; P M Paprottka Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2016-04-08 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Susanne Smolka; Julius Chapiro; Wilfred Manzano; John Treilhard; Eric Reiner; Yanhong Deng; Yan Zhao; Bernd Hamm; James S Duncan; Bernhard Gebauer; MingDe Lin; Jean-François Geschwind Journal: Clin Imaging Date: 2017-06-07 Impact factor: 1.605
Authors: T Schneider; J Chapiro; M Lin; J F Geschwind; L Kleinberg; D Rigamonti; I Jusué-Torres; A E Marciscano; D M Yousem Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2015-07-03 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Thomas J Vogl; Patrik Schaefer; Thomas Lehnert; Nour-Eldin A Nour-Eldin; Hanns Ackermann; Emmanuel Mbalisike; Renate Hammerstingl; Katrin Eichler; Stephan Zangos; Nagy N N Naguib Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2015-06-27 Impact factor: 5.315