Francois H Cornelis1,2, Elena N Petre1, Efsevia Vakiani3, David Klimstra3, Jeremy C Durack1, Mithat Gonen4, Joseph Osborne1, Stephen B Solomon1, Constantinos T Sofocleous5. 1. Interventional Radiology Service, Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York. 2. Department of Radiology, Université Pierre et Marie Curie, Sorbonne Université, Tenon Hospital, Paris, France. 3. Department of Pathology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York; and. 4. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York. 5. Interventional Radiology Service, Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York sofoclec@mskcc.org.
Abstract
The aim of this study was to determine whether intraprocedural 18F-FDG PET/CT can be used as a predictor of local tumor progression after percutaneous ablation of colorectal liver metastases. Methods: In this institutional review board-approved prospective study, 39 patients (19 men and 20 women; median age, 56 y) underwent split-dose 18F-FDG PET/CT-guided ablation followed by immediate biopsy and contrast-enhanced CT imaging of the ablation zone. Binary categorization of biopsy tissues was performed on the basis of the presence of only nonviable coagulation necrosis or viable tumor cells. Minimum ablation margin measurements from contrast-enhanced CT imaging were categorized as 0 mm, 1-4 mm, 5-9 mm, or greater than or equal to 10 mm. SUVs were obtained from PET/CT imaging, and SUV ratios were calculated from 3-dimensional regions of interest located in the ablation zone and surrounding normal liver. All predictive variables (biopsy, minimum margin distance, and SUV ratio) were evaluated as predictors of time to local tumor progression identified on imaging using competing-risks regression models (uni- and multivariate analyses). Results: A total of 62 consecutive ablations were evaluated. The mean SUV ratio was significantly higher for viable tumor-positive immediate postablation biopsies (n = 10) than for tumor-negative biopsies (n = 52) (85.8 ± 92.2 vs. 42.3 ± 45.5) (P = 0.03) and for a minimum margin size of less than 5 mm (n = 15) than for a minimum margin size of greater than or equal to 5 mm (n = 47) (78.5 ± 99.1 vs. 38.3 ± 78.5) (P = 0.01). After a median follow-up period of 22.5 (range, 7-52) months, 23 of 62 ablated tumors showed local tumor progression (37.1%). The local tumor progression rate was significantly higher for viable tumor-positive biopsies (8/10) than for negative biopsies (15/52) (80% vs. 29%) (P = 0.001) and for a minimum margin size of less than 5 mm (9/15) than for a minimum margin size of greater than or equal to 10 mm (2/15) (60% vs. 13%) (P = 0.02) but not 5-9 mm (37.5%; 12/32) (P = 0.5). In a competing-risks analysis, biopsy results (P = 0.07) and the minimum margin size (P = 0.08) were borderline significant, but the SUV ratio was not (P = 0.22). However, for negative biopsy ablations, the minimum margin size and SUV ratio were predictive imaging factors for local tumor progression; subdistribution hazard ratios were 0.564 (0.325-0.978) (P = 0.04) and 1.005 (1.001-1.009) (P = 0.005), respectively. Conclusion: The SUV ratio and minimum margin size can independently predict colorectal metastasis local tumor progression after liver ablation when there are no viable tumor cells on immediate postablation biopsies.
The aim of this study was to determine whether intraprocedural 18F-FDG PET/CT can be used as a predictor of local tumor progression after percutaneous ablation of colorectal liver metastases. Methods: In this institutional review board-approved prospective study, 39 patients (19 men and 20 women; median age, 56 y) underwent split-dose 18F-FDG PET/CT-guided ablation followed by immediate biopsy and contrast-enhanced CT imaging of the ablation zone. Binary categorization of biopsy tissues was performed on the basis of the presence of only nonviable coagulation necrosis or viable tumor cells. Minimum ablation margin measurements from contrast-enhanced CT imaging were categorized as 0 mm, 1-4 mm, 5-9 mm, or greater than or equal to 10 mm. SUVs were obtained from PET/CT imaging, and SUV ratios were calculated from 3-dimensional regions of interest located in the ablation zone and surrounding normal liver. All predictive variables (biopsy, minimum margin distance, and SUV ratio) were evaluated as predictors of time to local tumor progression identified on imaging using competing-risks regression models (uni- and multivariate analyses). Results: A total of 62 consecutive ablations were evaluated. The mean SUV ratio was significantly higher for viable tumor-positive immediate postablation biopsies (n = 10) than for tumor-negative biopsies (n = 52) (85.8 ± 92.2 vs. 42.3 ± 45.5) (P = 0.03) and for a minimum margin size of less than 5 mm (n = 15) than for a minimum margin size of greater than or equal to 5 mm (n = 47) (78.5 ± 99.1 vs. 38.3 ± 78.5) (P = 0.01). After a median follow-up period of 22.5 (range, 7-52) months, 23 of 62 ablated tumors showed local tumor progression (37.1%). The local tumor progression rate was significantly higher for viable tumor-positive biopsies (8/10) than for negative biopsies (15/52) (80% vs. 29%) (P = 0.001) and for a minimum margin size of less than 5 mm (9/15) than for a minimum margin size of greater than or equal to 10 mm (2/15) (60% vs. 13%) (P = 0.02) but not 5-9 mm (37.5%; 12/32) (P = 0.5). In a competing-risks analysis, biopsy results (P = 0.07) and the minimum margin size (P = 0.08) were borderline significant, but the SUV ratio was not (P = 0.22). However, for negative biopsy ablations, the minimum margin size and SUV ratio were predictive imaging factors for local tumor progression; subdistribution hazard ratios were 0.564 (0.325-0.978) (P = 0.04) and 1.005 (1.001-1.009) (P = 0.005), respectively. Conclusion: The SUV ratio and minimum margin size can independently predict colorectal metastasis local tumor progression after liver ablation when there are no viable tumor cells on immediate postablation biopsies.
Authors: Karin Nielsen; Aukje A J M van Tilborg; Hester J Scheffer; Martijn R Meijerink; Elly S M de Lange-de Klerk; Sybren Meijer; Emile F I Comans; M Petrousjka van den Tol Journal: Eur J Radiol Date: 2013-08-23 Impact factor: 3.528
Authors: Francois Cornelis; Vlasios Sotirchos; Elena Violari; Constantinos T Sofocleous; Heiko Schoder; Jeremy C Durack; Robert H Siegelbaum; Majid Maybody; John Humm; Stephen B Solomon Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2016-02-23 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Waleed Shady; Elena N Petre; Kinh Gian Do; Mithat Gonen; Hooman Yarmohammadi; Karen T Brown; Nancy E Kemeny; Michael D'Angelica; Peter T Kingham; Stephen B Solomon; Constantinos T Sofocleous Journal: J Vasc Interv Radiol Date: 2017-12-06 Impact factor: 3.464
Authors: T J Blokhuis; M C van der Schaaf; M P van den Tol; E F I Comans; R A Manoliu; J R M van der Sijp Journal: Scand J Gastroenterol Suppl Date: 2004
Authors: Xiaodong Wang; Joseph P Erinjeri; Xiaoyu Jia; Mithat Gonen; Karen T Brown; Constantinos T Sofocleous; George I Getrajdman; Lynn A Brody; Raymond H Thornton; Majid Maybody; Ann M Covey; Robert H Siegelbaum; William Alago; Stephen B Solomon Journal: Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol Date: 2012-11-14 Impact factor: 2.740
Authors: E Tanis; J W Spliethoff; D J Evers; G C Langhout; P Snaebjornsson; W Prevoo; B H W Hendriks; T J M Ruers Journal: Eur J Surg Oncol Date: 2015-12-23 Impact factor: 4.424
Authors: Constantinos T Sofocleous; Rodrigo G Nascimento; Lydia M Petrovic; David S Klimstra; Mithat Gonen; Karen T Brown; Lynn A Brody; Anne M Covey; Raymond H Thornton; Yuman Fong; Stephen B Solomon; Lawrence H Schwartz; Ronald P DeMatteo; George I Getrajdman Journal: Radiology Date: 2008-10 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Waleed Shady; Elena N Petre; Mithat Gonen; Joseph P Erinjeri; Karen T Brown; Anne M Covey; William Alago; Jeremy C Durack; Majid Maybody; Lynn A Brody; Robert H Siegelbaum; Michael I D'Angelica; William R Jarnagin; Stephen B Solomon; Nancy E Kemeny; Constantinos T Sofocleous Journal: Radiology Date: 2015-08-12 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Leigh C Casadaban; Paul J Catalano; Leslie K Lee; Hyewon Hyun; Kemal Tuncali; Victor H Gerbaudo; Paul B Shyn Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2021-02-09 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Nikiforos Vasiniotis Kamarinos; Efsevia Vakiani; Sho Fujisawa; Mithat Gonen; Ning Fan; Yevgeniy Romin; Richard K G Do; Etay Ziv; Joseph P Erinjeri; Elena N Petre; Vlasios S Sotirchos; Juan C Camacho; Stephen B Solomon; Katia Manova-Todorova; Constantinos T Sofocleous Journal: J Vasc Interv Radiol Date: 2021-11-17 Impact factor: 3.682
Authors: Paul B Shyn; Alan J Cubre; Paul J Catalano; Leslie K Lee; Hyewon Hyun; Kemal Tuncali; Julia G Seol; Vincent M Levesque; Victor H Gerbaudo; Tina Kapur; Ryan T Chao; Stuart G Silverman Journal: Abdom Radiol (NY) Date: 2021-02-19
Authors: Giovanni Mauri; Lorenzo Monfardini; Andrea Garnero; Maria Giulia Zampino; Franco Orsi; Paolo Della Vigna; Guido Bonomo; Gianluca Maria Varano; Marco Busso; Carlo Gazzera; Paolo Fonio; Andrea Veltri; Marco Calandri Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2021-05-26 Impact factor: 6.639
Authors: Okker D Bijlstra; Maud M E Boreel; Sietse van Mossel; Mark C Burgmans; Ellen H W Kapiteijn; Daniela E Oprea-Lager; Daphne D D Rietbergen; Floris H P van Velden; Alexander L Vahrmeijer; Rutger-Jan Swijnenburg; J Sven D Mieog; Lioe-Fee de Geus-Oei Journal: Diagnostics (Basel) Date: 2022-03-15