N Lassau1, B Coiffier2, M Kind3, V Vilgrain4, J Lacroix5, M Cuinet6, S Taieb7, R Aziza8, A Sarran9, C Labbe-Devilliers10, B Gallix11, O Lucidarme12, Y Ptak13, L Rocher14, L M Caquot15, S Chagnon16, D Marion17, A Luciani18, S Feutray19, J Uzan-Augui20, B Benatsou2, J Bonastre21, S Koscielny21. 1. Gustave Roussy, Université Paris-Saclay, Imaging Department, Villejuif, and IR4M, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Université Paris-Sud, Université Paris-Saclay, Villejuif nathalie.lassau@gustaveroussy.fr. 2. Gustave Roussy, Université Paris-Saclay, Imaging Department, Villejuif, and IR4M, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Université Paris-Sud, Université Paris-Saclay, Villejuif. 3. Imaging Department, Institut Bergonié, Bordeaux. 4. Radiology Department, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Hôpital Beaujon, Clichy. 5. Radiology Department, Centre François Baclesse, Caen. 6. Radiology Department, Centre Léon Bérard, Lyon. 7. Radiology Department, Centre Oscar Lambret, Lille. 8. Radiodiagnostics Department, Centre Claudius Regaud, Toulouse. 9. Imaging Department, Institut Paoli Calmettes, Marseille. 10. Radiodiagnostics Department, Centre René Gauducheau, ICO Nantes. 11. Department of Abdominal and Digestive Imaging, Hôpital Saint-Eloi, Montpellier and Department of Radiology, McGill University Health Center, Montreal, Canada. 12. Radiology Department, CHU La Pitié-Salpêtrière, Paris. 13. Radiodiagnostics Department, Centre Jean Perrin, Clermont-Ferrand. 14. Radiology Department, CHU Bicêtre, Le Kremlin-Bicêtre. 15. Radiodiagnostics and Imaging Department, Institut Jean Godinot, Reims. 16. Radiology Department, Hôpital Ambroise Paré, Boulogne-Billancourt. 17. Radiology Department, CHU Hôtel-Dieu, Lyon. 18. Radiology Department, CHU Henri Mondor, Créteil. 19. Radiology Department, Centre Georges-François Leclerc, Dijon. 20. Radiology Department, Hôpital Cochin, Paris. 21. Service biostatistique et épidémiologie, Gustave Roussy and CESP Centre for Research in Epidemiology and Population Health, INSERM U1018, Paris-Sud Univ., Villejuif, France.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Dynamic contrast-enhanced ultrasonography (DCE-US) has been used for evaluation of tumor response to antiangiogenic treatments. The objective of this study was to assess the link between DCE-US data obtained during the first week of treatment and subsequent tumor progression. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients treated with antiangiogenic therapies were included in a multicentric prospective study from 2007 to 2010. DCE-US examinations were available at baseline and at day 7. For each examination, a 3 min perfusion curve was recorded just after injection of a contrast agent. Each perfusion curve was modeled with seven parameters. We analyzed the correlation between criteria measured up to day 7 on freedom from progression (FFP). The impact was assessed globally, according to tumor localization and to type of treatment. RESULTS: The median follow-up was 20 months. The mean transit time (MTT) evaluated at day 7 was the only criterion significantly associated with FFP (P = 0.002). The cut-off point maximizing the difference between FFP curves was 12 s. Patients with at least a 12 s MTT had a better FFP. The results according to tumor type were significantly heterogeneous: the impact of MTT on FFP was more marked for breast cancer (P = 0.004) and for colon cancer (P = 0.025) than for other tumor types. Similarly, the differences in FFP according to MTT at day 7 were marked (P = 0.004) in patients receiving bevacizumab. CONCLUSION: The MTT evaluated with DCE-US at day 7 is significantly correlated to FFP of patients treated with bevacizumab. This criterion might be linked to vascular normalization. AFSSAPS NO: 2007-A00399-44.
BACKGROUND: Dynamic contrast-enhanced ultrasonography (DCE-US) has been used for evaluation of tumor response to antiangiogenic treatments. The objective of this study was to assess the link between DCE-US data obtained during the first week of treatment and subsequent tumor progression. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients treated with antiangiogenic therapies were included in a multicentric prospective study from 2007 to 2010. DCE-US examinations were available at baseline and at day 7. For each examination, a 3 min perfusion curve was recorded just after injection of a contrast agent. Each perfusion curve was modeled with seven parameters. We analyzed the correlation between criteria measured up to day 7 on freedom from progression (FFP). The impact was assessed globally, according to tumor localization and to type of treatment. RESULTS: The median follow-up was 20 months. The mean transit time (MTT) evaluated at day 7 was the only criterion significantly associated with FFP (P = 0.002). The cut-off point maximizing the difference between FFP curves was 12 s. Patients with at least a 12 s MTT had a better FFP. The results according to tumor type were significantly heterogeneous: the impact of MTT on FFP was more marked for breast cancer (P = 0.004) and for colon cancer (P = 0.025) than for other tumor types. Similarly, the differences in FFP according to MTT at day 7 were marked (P = 0.004) in patients receiving bevacizumab. CONCLUSION: The MTT evaluated with DCE-US at day 7 is significantly correlated to FFP of patients treated with bevacizumab. This criterion might be linked to vascular normalization. AFSSAPS NO: 2007-A00399-44.
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: N Lassau; M Lamuraglia; D Vanel; A Le Cesne; L Chami; S Jaziri; P Terrier; A Roche; J Leclere; S Bonvalot Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2005-05-25 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Stephanie J Blocker; Kirk A Douglas; Lisa Anne Polin; Helen Lee; Bart S Hendriks; Enxhi Lalo; Wei Chen; Anthony F Shields Journal: Theranostics Date: 2017-09-26 Impact factor: 11.556