OBJECTIVES: To examine the value of baseline 3D-ADC and to predict short-term response to treatment in patients with hepatic colorectal metastases (CLMs). METHODS: Liver MR images of 546 patients with CLMs (2008-2015) were reviewed retrospectively and 68 patients fulfilled inclusion criteria. Patients had received systemic chemotherapy (n = 17), hepatic trans-arterial chemoembolization or TACE (n = 34), and 90Y radioembolization (n = 17). Baseline (pre-treatment) 3D-ADC (volumetric) of metastatic lesions was calculated employing prototype software. RECIST 1.1 was used to assess short-term response to treatment. Prediction of response to treatment by baseline 3D-ADC and 2D-ADC (ROI-based) was also compared in all patients. RESULTS: Partial response to treatment (minimum 30% decrease in tumor largest transverse diameter) was seen in 35.3% of patients; 41.2% with systemic chemotherapy, 32.4% with TACE, and 35.3% with 90Y radioembolization (p = 0.82). Median baseline 3D-ADC was significantly lower in responding than in nonresponding lesions. Area under the curve (AUC) of 3D-ADC was 0.90 in 90Y radioembolization patients, 0.88 in TACE patients, and 0.77 in systemic chemotherapy patients (p < 0.01). Optimal prediction was observed with the 10th percentile of ADC (1006 × 10-6 mm2/s), yielding sensitivity and specificity of 77.4% and 91.3%, respectively. 3D-ADC outperformed 2D-ADC in predicting response to treatment (AUC; 0.86 vs. 0.71; p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Baseline 3D-ADC is a highly specific biomarker in predicting partial short-term response to treatment in hepatic CLMs. KEY POINTS: • Baseline 3D-ADC is a highly specific biomarker in predicting response to different treatments in hepatic CLMs. • The prediction level of baseline ADC is better for90Y radioembolization than for systemic chemotherapy/TACE in hepatic CLMs. • 3D-ADC outperforms 2D-ADC in predicting short-term response to treatment in hepatic CLMs.
OBJECTIVES: To examine the value of baseline 3D-ADC and to predict short-term response to treatment in patients with hepatic colorectal metastases (CLMs). METHODS: Liver MR images of 546 patients with CLMs (2008-2015) were reviewed retrospectively and 68 patients fulfilled inclusion criteria. Patients had received systemic chemotherapy (n = 17), hepatic trans-arterial chemoembolization or TACE (n = 34), and 90Y radioembolization (n = 17). Baseline (pre-treatment) 3D-ADC (volumetric) of metastatic lesions was calculated employing prototype software. RECIST 1.1 was used to assess short-term response to treatment. Prediction of response to treatment by baseline 3D-ADC and 2D-ADC (ROI-based) was also compared in all patients. RESULTS: Partial response to treatment (minimum 30% decrease in tumor largest transverse diameter) was seen in 35.3% of patients; 41.2% with systemic chemotherapy, 32.4% with TACE, and 35.3% with 90Y radioembolization (p = 0.82). Median baseline 3D-ADC was significantly lower in responding than in nonresponding lesions. Area under the curve (AUC) of 3D-ADC was 0.90 in 90Y radioembolization patients, 0.88 in TACEpatients, and 0.77 in systemic chemotherapy patients (p < 0.01). Optimal prediction was observed with the 10th percentile of ADC (1006 × 10-6 mm2/s), yielding sensitivity and specificity of 77.4% and 91.3%, respectively. 3D-ADC outperformed 2D-ADC in predicting response to treatment (AUC; 0.86 vs. 0.71; p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Baseline 3D-ADC is a highly specific biomarker in predicting partial short-term response to treatment in hepatic CLMs. KEY POINTS: • Baseline 3D-ADC is a highly specific biomarker in predicting response to different treatments in hepatic CLMs. • The prediction level of baseline ADC is better for90Y radioembolization than for systemic chemotherapy/TACE in hepatic CLMs. • 3D-ADC outperforms 2D-ADC in predicting short-term response to treatment in hepatic CLMs.
Entities:
Keywords:
Colorectal neoplasms; Diffusion magnetic resonance imaging; Liver neoplasms; RECIST
Authors: Frederic Carsten Schmeel; Birgit Simon; Julian Alexander Luetkens; Frank Träber; Carsten Meyer; Leonard Christopher Schmeel; Amir Sabet; Samer Ezziddin; Hans Heinz Schild; Dariusch Reza Hadizadeh Journal: J Cancer Res Clin Oncol Date: 2017-03-19 Impact factor: 4.553
Authors: Christian P Filss; Norbert Galldiks; Gabriele Stoffels; Michael Sabel; Hans J Wittsack; Bernd Turowski; Gerald Antoch; Ke Zhang; Gereon R Fink; Heinz H Coenen; Nadim J Shah; Hans Herzog; Karl-Josef Langen Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2014-02-27 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: E A Eisenhauer; P Therasse; J Bogaerts; L H Schwartz; D Sargent; R Ford; J Dancey; S Arbuck; S Gwyther; M Mooney; L Rubinstein; L Shankar; L Dodd; R Kaplan; D Lacombe; J Verweij Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2009-01 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Nima Kokabi; Johannes M Ludwig; Juan C Camacho; Minzhi Xing; Pardeep K Mittal; Hyun S Kim Journal: J Vasc Interv Radiol Date: 2015-12 Impact factor: 3.464
Authors: Christian Wybranski; Martin Zeile; David Löwenthal; Frank Fischbach; Maciej Pech; Friedrich-Wilhelm Röhl; Günther Gademann; Jens Ricke; Oliver Dudeck Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2011-04-27 Impact factor: 3.481
Authors: Alexandra Barabasch; Nils A Kraemer; Alexander Ciritsis; Nienke L Hansen; Marco Lierfeld; Alexander Heinzel; Christian Trautwein; Ulf Neumann; Christiane K Kuhl Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2015-06 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: Thomas J Vogl; Christian Marko; Marcel C Langenbach; Nagy N N Naguib; Natalie Filmann; Renate Hammerstingl; Tatjana Gruber-Rouh Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2020-09-22 Impact factor: 5.315