Advertisement

Abdominal Radiology

, Volume 43, Issue 7, pp 1575–1582 | Cite as

Quantitating whole lesion tumor biology in rectal cancer MRI: taking a lesson from FDG-PET tumor metrics

  • Marc J. Gollub
  • Andreas M. Hotker
  • Kaitlin M. Woo
  • Yousef Mazaheri
  • Mithat Gonen
Article

Abstract

Purpose

To determine the value of novel whole tumor metrics in DWI-MRI and DCE-MRI of rectal cancer treatment assessment.

Materials and methods

This retrospective study included 24 uniformly treated patients with rectal adenocarcinoma who underwent MRI including diffusion-weighted (DW) and dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) sequences, before and after chemoradiotherapy. Two experienced readers independently measured tumor volume and apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) on DWI-MRI and tumor volume and transfer constant K trans on DCE-MRI. In addition, we explored and defined Total Lesion Diffusion (TLD) as Total DWI tumor volume multiplied by mean volumetric ADC and Total Lesion Perfusion (TLP) as the total DCE tumor volume multiplied by the mean volumetric K trans. These metrics were correlated with histopathologic percent tumor regression in the resected specimen (%TR). Inter-reader agreement was assessed using the concordance correlation coefficient (CCC).

Results

For both readers, post-treatment TLP revealed comparable correlations with %TR compared with K trans (reader 1; Spearman’s rho = − 0.36 vs. − 0.32, reader 2; Spearman’s rho = − 0.32 vs. − 0.28). In addition, TLP afforded the highest inter-reader agreement at post-treatment among TLP, DCE vol, and K trans (CCC: 0.64 vs. 0.36 vs. 0.35). Post-treatment TLD showed similar correlation with %TR as DWI volume in reader 1 and superior correlation with %TR for reader 2 (reader 1; Spearman’s rho − 0.56 vs. − 0.57, reader 2; Spearman’s rho − 0.59 vs. − 0.45).

Conclusion

The novel tumor metrics TLD and TLP revealed similar results to established metrics for correlation with tumor response with equivalent or superior inter-reader agreements and we recommend that these be studied in larger trials.

Keywords

Rectal cancer Tumor response Diffusion-weighted MRI Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI 

Notes

Acknowledgement

We would like to thank our editor, Ada Muellner, MS, for her help with manuscript preparation.

Compliance with ethical standards

Funding

Research reported in this publication was supported by the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health under Award Number R25CA020449. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.

Conflict of interest

Marc J. Gollub have no disclosures to make, Andreas M. Hötker have no disclosures to make. Kaitlin M. Woo have no disclosures. Yousef Mazaheri have no disclosures. Mithat Gonen Research reported in this publication was supported by the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health under Award Number R25CA020449. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

The need for informed consent was deemed unnecessary by the Memorial Sloan Kettering IRB and was thus waived for this retrospective study.

References

  1. 1.
    van der Paardt MP, Zagers MB, Beets-Tan RGH, Stoker J, Bipat S (2013) Patients who undergo preoperative chemoradiotherapy for locally advanced rectal cancer restaged by using diagnostic MR imaging: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Radiology 269(1):101–112CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lambregts DM, Beets GL, Maas M, et al. (2011) Tumor ADC measurements in rectal cancer: effect of ROI methods on ADC values and interobserver variability. Eur Radiol 21(12):2567–2574 (Epub 2011 Aug 7).  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-011-2220-5 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gollub MJ, Tong T, Weiser M, et al. (2016) Limited accuracy of DCE-MRI in identification of pathological complete responders after chemoradiotherapy treatment for rectal cancer. Eur Radiol .  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-016-4493-1 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hötker AM, Schmidtmann I, Oberholzer K, Düber C (2014) Dynamic contrast enhanced-MRI in rectal cancer: inter- and intraobserver reproducibility and the effect of slice selection on pharmacokinetic analysis. J Magn Reson Imaging 40(3):715–722 (Epub 2013 Oct 11).  https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.24385 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Intven M, Monninkhof EM, Reerink O, Philippens ME (2015) Combined T2w volumetry, DW-MRI and DCE-MRI for response assessment after neo-adjuvant chemoradiation in locally advanced rectal cancer. Acta Oncol 54(10):1729–1736 (Epub 2015 Apr 27).  https://doi.org/10.3109/0284186X.2015.1037010 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Curvo-Semedo L, Lambregts DM, Maas M, et al. (2011) Rectal cancer: assessment of complete response to preoperative combined radiation therapy with chemotherapy–conventional MR volumetry versus diffusion- weighted MR imaging. Radiology 260(3):734–743CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kim SH, Lee JM, Hong SH, et al. (2009) Locally advanced rectal cancer: added value of diffusion-weighted MR imaging in the evaluation of tumor response to neoadjuvant chemo- and radiation therapy. Radiology 253(1):116–125CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Larson SM, Erdi Y, Akhurst T, Mazumdar M, et al. (1999) Tumor treatment response based on visual and quantitative changes in global tumor glycolysis using PET-FDG imaging: the visual response score and the change in total lesion glycolysis. Clin Positron Imaging 2:159–171CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Akhurst T, Ng V, Larson SM, et al. (2000) Tumor burden assessment with positron emission tomography with [18-F] 2-fluoro 2-deoxyglucose (FDG PET) modeled in metastatic renal cell cancer. Clin Positron Imaging 3:57–65CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Guillem JG, Puig-La Calle J, Akhurst T Jr, et al. (2000) Prospective assessment of primary rectal cancer response to preoperative radiation and chemotherapy using 18-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography. Dis Colon Rectum 43(1):18–24CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hötker AM, Tarlinton L, Mazaheri Y, et al. (2016) Multiparametric MRI in the assessment of response of rectal cancer to neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy: a comparison of morphological, volumetric and functional MRI parameters. Eur Radiol 26(12):4303–4312CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Benson AB, Bekaii-Saab T, Chan E, et al. (2012) Rectal cancer. J. Natl Compr Cancer Netw 10(12):1528–1564CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Curvo-Semedo L, Lambregts DM, Maas M, Beets GL, Caseiro-Alves F (2012) Beets-Tan RG Diffusion-weighted MRI in rectal cancer: apparent diffusion coefficient as a potential noninvasive marker of tumor aggressiveness. J Magn Reson Imaging 35(6):1365–1371CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Curvo-Semedo L, Lambregts DM, Maas M, et al. (2011) Rectal cancer: assessment of complete response to preoperative combined radiation therapy with chemotherapy—conventional MR volumetry versus diffusion-weighted MR imaging. Radiology 260(3):734–743CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kim SH, Lee JY, Lee JM, Han JK, Choi BI (2011) Apparent diffusion coefficient for evaluating tumor response to neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy for locally advanced rectal cancer. Eur Radiol 21(5):987–995CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Tofts PS, Brix G, Buckley DL, et al. (1999) Estimating kinetic parameters from dynamic contrast-enhanced T1-weighted MRI of a diffusable tracer: standardized quantities and symbols. J Magn Reson Imaging 10(3):223–232CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gollub MJ, Gultekin DH, Akin O, et al. (2012) Dynamic contrast enhanced-MRI for the detection of pathological complete response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy for locally advanced rectal cancer. Eur Radiol 22(4):821–831CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Stanisz GJ, Odrobina EE, Pun J, et al. (2005) T1, T2 relaxation and magnetization transfer in tissue at 3T. Magn Reson Med 54(3):507–512CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Schneider CA, Rasband WS, Eliceiri KW (2012) NIH Image to ImageJ: 25 years of image analysis. Nat Methods 9(7):671–675CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Shia J, Guillem JG, Moore HG, et al. (2004) Patterns of morphologic alteration in residual rectal carcinoma following preoperative chemoradiation and their association with long-term outcome. Am J Surg Pathol 28(2):215–223CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Trakarnsanga A, Gönen M, Shia J, et al. (2014) Comparison of tumor regression grade systems for locally advanced rectal cancer after multimodality treatment. J Natl Cancer Inst 106(10):dju248CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lin LIA (1989) Concordance correlation coefficient to evaluate reproducibility. Biometrics 45(1):255–268CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Harvey C, Dooher A, Morgan J, et al. (1999) Imaging of tumor therapy response by dynamic CT. Eur J Radiol 30:221–226CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Gu J, Khong P-L, Wang S, et al. (2011) Quantitative assessment of diffusion-weighted MR imaging in patients with primary rectal cancer: correlation with FDG-PET/CT. Mol Imaging Biol 13:1020–1028CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Barbaro B, Fiorucci C, Tebala C, et al. (2009) Locally advanced rectal cancer: MR imaging in prediction of response after preoperative chemotherapy and radiation therapy. Radiology 250(3):730–739CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kuo LJ, Chern MC, Tsou MH, et al. (2005) Interpretation of magnetic resonance imaging for locally advanced rectal carcinoma after preoperative chemoradiation therapy. Dis Colon Rectum 48(1):23–28CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Dworak O, Keilholz L, Hoffmann A (1997) Pathological features of rectal cancer after preoperative radiochemotherapy. Int J Colorectal Dis 12(1):19–23CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Mandard AM, Dalibard F, Mandard JC, et al. (1994) Pathologic assessment of tumor regression after preoperative chemoradiotherapy of esophageal carcinoma. Clin Correl Cancer 73(11):2680–2686Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Patel UB, Taylor F, et al. (2011) Magnetic resonance imaging-detected tumor response for locally advanced rectal cancer predicts survival outcomes: MERCURY experience. Clin Oncol 29(28):3753–3760 (Epub 2011 Aug 29).  https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2011.34.9068 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Hötker AM, Garcia-Aguilar J (2014) Gollub MJ Multiparametric MRI of rectal cancer in the assessment of response to therapy: a systematic review. Dis Colon Rectum 57(6):790–799CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Lim JS, Kim D, Baek SE, et al. (2012) Perfusion MRI for the prediction of treatment response after preoperative chemoradiotherapy in locally advanced rectal cancer. Eur Radiol 22(8):1693–1700CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marc J. Gollub
    • 1
  • Andreas M. Hotker
    • 2
    • 3
  • Kaitlin M. Woo
    • 4
  • Yousef Mazaheri
    • 5
  • Mithat Gonen
    • 6
  1. 1.Department of RadiologyMemorial Sloan Kettering Cancer CenterNew YorkUSA
  2. 2.Department of Diagnostic and Interventional RadiologyUniversitätsmedizin MainzMainzGermany
  3. 3.Department of RadiologyUniversitätsmedizin MainzMainzGermany
  4. 4.Department of Biostatistics and Medical InformaticsUniversity of WisconsinMadisonUSA
  5. 5.Department of Medical PhysicsMemorial Sloan Kettering Cancer CenterNew YorkUSA
  6. 6.Department of Epidemiology and BiostatisticsMemorial Sloan Kettering Cancer CenterNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations