Grégory Kuchcinski1, Emilie Le Rhun2,3,4, Alexis B Cortot5, Elodie Drumez6, Romain Duhal7, Maxime Lalisse7, Julien Dumont7, Renaud Lopes7, Jean-Pierre Pruvo7, Xavier Leclerc7, Christine Delmaire7. 1. Department of Neuroradiology, University of Lille, CHU Lille, Rue Emile Laine, F-59000, Lille, France. gregory.kuchcinski@univ-lille2.fr. 2. Department of Neurosurgery, University of Lille, CHU Lille, F-59000, Lille, France. 3. Department of Medical Oncology, Oscar Lambret Center, F-59000, Lille, France. 4. Inserm U1192-PRISM-Laboratoire de Protéomique, Réponse Inflammatoire, Spectrométrie de Masse, F-59000, Lille, France. 5. Department of Thoracic Oncology, University of Lille, CHU Lille, F-59000, Lille, France. 6. Department of Biostatistics, University of Lille, CHU Lille, EA 2694-Santé publique: épidémiologie et qualité des soins, F-59000, Lille, France. 7. Department of Neuroradiology, University of Lille, CHU Lille, Rue Emile Laine, F-59000, Lille, France.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To determine the diagnostic accuracy of pharmacokinetic parameters measured by dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in predicting the response of brain metastases to antineoplastic therapy in patients with lung cancer. METHODS: Forty-four consecutive patients with lung cancer, harbouring 123 newly diagnosed brain metastases prospectively underwent conventional 3-T MRI at baseline (within 1 month before treatment), during the early (7-10 weeks) and midterm (5-7 months) post-treatment period. An additional DCE MRI sequence was performed during baseline and early post-treatment MRI to evaluate baseline pharmacokinetic parameters (K trans, k ep, v e, v p) and their early variation (∆K trans, ∆k ep, ∆v e, ∆v p). The objective response was judged by the volume variation of each metastasis from baseline to midterm MRI. ROC curve analysis determined the best DCE MRI parameter to predict the objective response. RESULTS: Baseline DCE MRI parameters were not associated with the objective response. Early ∆K trans, ∆v e and ∆v p were significantly associated with the objective response (p = 0.02, p = 0.001 and p = 0.02, respectively). The best predictor of objective response was ∆v e with an area under the curve of 0.93 [95% CI = 0.87, 0.99]. CONCLUSIONS: DCE MRI and early ∆v e may be a useful tool to predict the objective response of brain metastases in patients with lung cancer. KEY POINTS: • DCE MRI could predict the response of brain metastases from lung cancer • ∆v e was the best predictor of response • DCE MRI could be used to individualize patients' follow-up.
OBJECTIVES: To determine the diagnostic accuracy of pharmacokinetic parameters measured by dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in predicting the response of brain metastases to antineoplastic therapy in patients with lung cancer. METHODS: Forty-four consecutive patients with lung cancer, harbouring 123 newly diagnosed brain metastases prospectively underwent conventional 3-T MRI at baseline (within 1 month before treatment), during the early (7-10 weeks) and midterm (5-7 months) post-treatment period. An additional DCE MRI sequence was performed during baseline and early post-treatment MRI to evaluate baseline pharmacokinetic parameters (K trans, k ep, v e, v p) and their early variation (∆K trans, ∆k ep, ∆v e, ∆v p). The objective response was judged by the volume variation of each metastasis from baseline to midterm MRI. ROC curve analysis determined the best DCE MRI parameter to predict the objective response. RESULTS: Baseline DCE MRI parameters were not associated with the objective response. Early ∆K trans, ∆v e and ∆v p were significantly associated with the objective response (p = 0.02, p = 0.001 and p = 0.02, respectively). The best predictor of objective response was ∆v e with an area under the curve of 0.93 [95% CI = 0.87, 0.99]. CONCLUSIONS:DCE MRI and early ∆v e may be a useful tool to predict the objective response of brain metastases in patients with lung cancer. KEY POINTS: • DCE MRI could predict the response of brain metastases from lung cancer • ∆v e was the best predictor of response • DCE MRI could be used to individualize patients' follow-up.
Authors: Daniela B Almeida-Freitas; Marco C Pinho; Maria C G Otaduy; Henrique F Braga; Daniel Meira-Freitas; Claudia da Costa Leite Journal: Neuroradiology Date: 2014-03-21 Impact factor: 2.804
Authors: R Soffietti; P Cornu; J Y Delattre; R Grant; F Graus; W Grisold; J Heimans; J Hildebrand; P Hoskin; M Kalljo; P Krauseneck; C Marosi; T Siegal; C Vecht Journal: Eur J Neurol Date: 2006-07 Impact factor: 6.089
Authors: J Ferlay; E Steliarova-Foucher; J Lortet-Tieulent; S Rosso; J W W Coebergh; H Comber; D Forman; F Bray Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2013-02-26 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Frits Thorsen; Brett Fite; Lisa M Mahakian; Jai W Seo; Shengping Qin; Victoria Harrison; Sarah Johnson; Elizabeth Ingham; Charles Caskey; Terje Sundstrøm; Thomas J Meade; Patrick N Harter; Kai Ove Skaftnesmo; Katherine W Ferrara Journal: J Control Release Date: 2013-10-29 Impact factor: 9.776
Authors: Christian T Farrar; Walid S Kamoun; Carsten D Ley; Young R Kim; Ciprian Catana; Seon J Kwon; Bruce R Rosen; Rakesh K Jain; A Gregory Sorensen Journal: PLoS One Date: 2011-03-03 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: John J Connell; Grégoire Chatain; Bart Cornelissen; Katherine A Vallis; Alastair Hamilton; Len Seymour; Daniel C Anthony; Nicola R Sibson Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2013-10-09 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Robert H Press; Jim Zhong; Saumya S Gurbani; Brent D Weinberg; Bree R Eaton; Hyunsuk Shim; Hui-Kuo G Shu Journal: Neurosurgery Date: 2019-08-01 Impact factor: 4.654
Authors: Norbert Galldiks; Martin Kocher; Garry Ceccon; Jan-Michael Werner; Anna Brunn; Martina Deckert; Whitney B Pope; Riccardo Soffietti; Emilie Le Rhun; Michael Weller; Jörg C Tonn; Gereon R Fink; Karl-Josef Langen Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2020-01-11 Impact factor: 12.300
Authors: Robert H Press; Hui-Kuo G Shu; Hyunsuk Shim; James M Mountz; Brenda F Kurland; Richard L Wahl; Ella F Jones; Nola M Hylton; Elizabeth R Gerstner; Robert J Nordstrom; Lori Henderson; Karen A Kurdziel; Bhadrasain Vikram; Michael A Jacobs; Matthias Holdhoff; Edward Taylor; David A Jaffray; Lawrence H Schwartz; David A Mankoff; Paul E Kinahan; Hannah M Linden; Philippe Lambin; Thomas J Dilling; Daniel L Rubin; Lubomir Hadjiiski; John M Buatti Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2018-06-30 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Thomas Weikert; Ole Christopher Maas; Tanja Haas; Markus Klarhöfer; Jens Bremerich; Flavio Forrer; Alexander Walter Sauter; Gregor Sommer Journal: Contrast Media Mol Imaging Date: 2019-11-11 Impact factor: 3.161