Advertisement

Abdominal Radiology

, Volume 44, Issue 11, pp 3641–3651 | Cite as

A prospective feasibility study evaluating the role of multimodality imaging and liquid biopsy for response assessment in locally advanced rectal carcinoma

  • Zahra KassamEmail author
  • Kyle Burgers
  • Joanna C. Walsh
  • Ting-Yim Lee
  • Hon S. Leong
  • Barbara Fisher
Special Section: Rectal Cancer

Abstract

Purpose

Colorectal cancer is a commonly encountered disease that poses several diagnostic and therapeutic challenges. The inherent heterogeneity of tumor biology and propensity to relapse despite “curative” resection pose significant challenges with regard to response assessment. Although MR imaging already plays a key role in primary staging of patients with rectal carcinoma, its reliability in restaging after neoadjuvant therapy is debatable (Van der broek et al. in Dis Colon Rectum 60(3):274–283, 2017). Therefore, there is significant interest in developing additional methods which may improve diagnostic accuracy. This study aims to evaluate the role of multimodality imaging and liquid biopsy in therapeutic response assessment.

Methods

Seventeen patients were enrolled into the study over a span of 24 months. All underwent hybrid PET-MRI and CT-perfusion (CT-P), prior to and following neoadjuvant therapy for locally advanced rectal carcinoma. Twelve of the 17 patients also underwent liquid biopsy, which consisted of blood sampling and analysis of circulating tumor cells (CTCs) and extracellular vesicles (EVs), including cell fragments and microparticles (MPs), using the Cell Search System (Menarini Silicon Biosystems). SUV, DWI, and ADC were calculated during PET-MRI, and several parameters were evaluated during CT-perfusion, including average perfusion, blood flow (BF), blood volume (BV), mean transit time (MTT), permeability-surface area product (PS), contrast extraction efficiency (E), and K-trans (K). Changes observed pre- and post-neoadjuvant therapy in each modality were compared to tumor response at histopathology using a modified Ryan tumor regression grading system.

Results

Of the 17 patients included in the study, 14 were classified as non-responders, and 3 were classified as responders as determined by the modified Ryan Tumor Regression Grade (TRG) scoring system (Van der broek et al. in Dis Colon Rectum 60(3):274–283, 2017). When combined, blood markers and CT-P parameters (mean transit time (MTT), K-trans, and permeability-surface area product (PS)) produced the strongest models (p < 0.01). PET (SUV measurement) combined with CT-P-derived K-trans produced a marginally significant (p = 0.057) model for predicting response. MRI-derived ADC value did not provide a significant model for response prediction.

Conclusion

A model of CT-P parameters plus liquid biopsy more accurately predicts tumor response than PET-MRI, CT-P alone, or liquid biopsy alone. These results suggest that in the evaluation of treatment response, liquid biopsy could provide additional information to functional imaging modalities such as CT-P and should therefore be explored further in a trial with larger sample size.

Keywords

MRI PET-MRI CT-perfusion Extracellular vesicles Rectal cancer 

Notes

References

  1. 1.
    Jemal, A., Bray, F., Center, M. M., Ferlay, J., Ward, E., & Forman, D. (2011) Global cancer statistics. CA Cancer J Clin. 61(2):69–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Meyer, J. (2010) Increasing Incidence of Rectal Cancer in Patients Aged Younger Than 40 Years: An Analysis of the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Database. Cancer 116(18):4354–4359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kapiteijn E, Marijnen CA, Nagtegaal ID, et al. (2001) Preoperative radiotherapy combined with total mesorectal excision for resectable rectal cancer. N Engl J Med. 345(9):638–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sauer R, Becker H, Hohenberger W, et al. (2004) Preoperative versus postoperative chemoradiotherapy for rectal cancer. N Engl J Med. 351(17):1731–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Wei IH, Garcia-aguilar J. (2018) Non-operative management of rectal cancer: understanding tumor biology. Minerva Chir. 73(6):601–618.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Taylor FG, Quirke P, Heald RJ, et al. (2014) Preoperative magnetic resonance imaging assessment of circumferential resection margin predicts disease-free survival and local recurrence: 5-year follow-up results of the MERCURY study. J Clin Oncol. 32(1):34–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Klein CA. (2009) Parallel progression of primary tumours and metastases. Nat Rev Cancer. 9(4):302–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kim, 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 253:116–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Goh, V., & Glynne-Jones, R. (2014) Perfusion CT imaging of colorectal cancer. The British Journal of Radiology. 87(1034):20130811.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mandeville HC, Ng QS, Daley FM, et al. (2012) Operable non-small cell lung cancer: correlation of volumetric helical dynamic contrast-enhanced CT parameters with immunohistochemical markers of tumor hypoxia. Radiology 264(2):581–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wang CC, Tseng CC, Chang HC, et al. (2017) Circulating microparticles are prognostic biomarkers in advanced non-small cell lung cancer patients. Oncotarget 8(44):75952–75967.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hardingham JE, Grover P, Winter M, Hewett PJ, Price TJ, Thierry B. (2015) Detection and Clinical Significance of Circulating Tumor Cells in Colorectal Cancer–20 Years of Progress. Mol Med. 21 Suppl 1:S25–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Eiber M, Martinez-möller A, Souvatzoglou M, et al. (2011) Value of a Dixon-based MR/PET attenuation correction sequence for the localization and evaluation of PET-positive lesions. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 38(9):1691–701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Cohen SJ, Alpaugh RK, Gross S, et al. (2006) Isolation and characterization of circulating tumor cells in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. Clin Colorectal Cancer. 6(2):125–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Biggs, CN. (2016) Prostate extracellular vesicles in patient plasma as a liquid biopsy platform for prostate cancer using nanoscale flow cytometry. Oncotarget 7:8839–8849.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kim SH, Chang HJ, Kim DY, et al. (2016) What Is the Ideal Tumor Regression Grading System in Rectal Cancer Patients after Preoperative Chemoradiotherapy? Cancer Res Treat. 48(3):998–1009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    MERCURY Study Group. (2006) Diagnostic accuracy of preoperative magnetic resonance imaging in predicting curative resection of rectal cancer: prospective observational study. BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.) 333(7572):779.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Van den broek JJ, Van der wolf FS, Lahaye MJ, et al. (2017) Accuracy of MRI in Restaging Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer After Preoperative Chemoradiation. Dis Colon Rectum. 60(3):274–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Goh, V. Glynne-jones, R. (2013) Perfusion CT imaging of colorectal cancer. Br J Radiol. 87(1034):20130811.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Curvo-Semedo, L., Portilha, M. A., Ruivo, C., Borrego, M., Leite, J. S., Caseiro-Alves, F. (2012) Usefulness of Perfusion CT to Assess Response to Neoadjuvant Combined Chemoradiotherapy in Patients with Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer. Academic Radiology. 19(2):203-13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sahani, D. V., Kalva, S. P., Hamberg, L. M., Hahn, P. F., Willett, C. G., Saini, S., Lee, T.-Y. (2005) Assessing Tumor Perfusion and Treatment Response in Rectal Cancer with Multisection CT: Initial Observations. Radiology. 234(3):785–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Deantonio L, Caroli A, Puta E, et al. (2018) Does baseline [18F] FDG-PET/CT correlate with tumor staging, response after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, and prognosis in patients with rectal cancer? Radiat Oncol. 13(1):211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Travaini LL, Zampino MG, Colandrea M, et al. (2016) PET/CT with Fluorodeoxyglucose During Neoadjuvant Chemoradiotherapy in Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer. Ecancermedicalscience. 10:629.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Rosenberg R, Herrmann K, Gertler R, et al. (2009) The predictive value of metabolic response to preoperative radiochemotherapy in locally advanced rectal cancer measured by PET/CT. Int J Colorectal Dis. 24(2):191–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Burz C, Pop VV, Buiga R, et al. (2018) Circulating tumor cells in clinical research and monitoring patients with colorectal cancer. Oncotarget. 9(36):24561–24571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Willms A, Müller C, Julich H, et al. (2016) Tumour-associated circulating microparticles: A novel liquid biopsy tool for screening and therapy monitoring of colorectal carcinoma and other epithelial neoplasia. Oncotarget. 7(21):30867–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Tie J, Wang Y, Tomasetti C, et al. Circulating tumor DNA analysis detects minimal residual disease and predicts recurrence in patients with stage II colon cancer. Sci Transl Med. 2016;8(346):346ra92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Harvey, C. (1999). Imaging of tumour therapy responses by dynamic CT. European Journal of Radiology 30(3):221–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Bellomi M, Petralia G, Sonzogni A, Zampino MG, Rocca A. (2007) CT perfusion for the monitoring of neoadjuvant chemotherapy and radiation therapy in rectal carcinoma: initial experience. Radiology. 244(2):486–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Aiba T, Uehara K, Nihashi T, et al. (2014) MRI and FDG-PET for assessment of response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in locally advanced rectal cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 21(6):1801–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Jia S, Zhang R, Li Z, Li J. (2017) Clinical and biological significance of circulating tumor cells, circulating tumor DNA, and exosomes as biomarkers in colorectal cancer. Oncotarget 8(33):55632–55645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Shi D, Cai G, Peng J, et al. (2015) The preoperative SUVmax for (18)F-FDG uptake predicts survival in patients with colorectal cancer. BMC Cancer 15:991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Ozis, S. E., Soydal, C., Akyol, C., Can, N., Kucuk, O. N., Yagcı, C., Kuzu, M. A. (2014) The role of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography in the primary staging of rectal cancer. World Journal of Surgical Oncology.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Krebs MG, Renehan AG, Backen A, et al. (2015) Circulating Tumor Cell Enumeration in a Phase II Trial of a Four-Drug Regimen in Advanced Colorectal Cancer. Clin Colorectal Cancer. 14(2):115-22.e1-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Rahbari NN, Aigner M, Thorlund K, et al. (2010) Meta-analysis shows that detection of circulating tumor cells indicates poor prognosis in patients with colorectal cancer. Gastroenterology. 138(5):1714–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Medical Imaging, Schulich School of MedicineWestern UniversityLondonCanada
  2. 2.St. Joseph’s HospitalLondonCanada
  3. 3.Robarts Research InstituteWestern UniversityLondonCanada
  4. 4.Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Schulich School of Medicine & DentistryWestern UniversityLondonCanada
  5. 5.Lawson Health Research Institute and Robarts Research InstituteWestern UniversityLondonCanada
  6. 6.Mayo Clinic Cancer CentreRochesterUSA
  7. 7.Radiation Oncology, London Regional Cancer ProgramWestern UniversityLondonCanada

Personalised recommendations