Advertisement

European Radiology

, Volume 24, Issue 8, pp 1896–1905 | Cite as

Dual-energy computed tomography for the assessment of early treatment effects of regorafenib in a preclinical tumor model: comparison with dynamic contrast-enhanced CT and conventional contrast-enhanced single-energy CT

  • Gesine KnoblochEmail author
  • Gregor Jost
  • Alexander Huppertz
  • Bernd Hamm
  • Hubertus Pietsch
Computed Tomography

Abstract

Objectives

The potential diagnostic value of dual-energy computed tomography (DE-CT) compared to dynamic contrast-enhanced CT (DCE-CT) and conventional contrast-enhanced CT (CE-CT) in the assessment of early regorafenib treatment effects was evaluated in a preclinical setting.

Methods

A rat GS9L glioma model was examined with contrast-enhanced dynamic DE-CT measurements (80 kV/140 kV) for 4 min before and on days 1 and 4 after the start of daily regorafenib or placebo treatment. Tumour time-density curves (0-240 s, 80 kV), DE-CT (60 s) derived iodine maps and the DCE-CT (0-30 s, 80 kV) based parameters blood flow (BF), blood volume (BV) and permeability (PMB) were calculated and compared to conventional CE-CT (60 s, 80 kV).

Results

The regorafenib group showed a marked decrease in the tumour time-density curve, a significantly lower iodine concentration and a significantly lower PMB on day 1 and 4 compared to baseline, which was not observed for the placebo group. CE-CT showed a significant decrease in tumour density on day 4 but not on day 1. The DE-CT-derived iodine concentrations correlated with PMB and BV but not with BF.

Conclusions

DE-CT allows early treatment monitoring, which correlates with DCE-CT. Superior performance was observed compared to single-energy CE-CT.

Key Points

Regorafenib treatment response was evaluated by CT in a rat tumour model.

Dual-energy contrast-enhanced CT allows early treatment monitoring of targeted anti-tumour therapies.

Dual-energy CT showed higher diagnostic potential than conventional contrast enhanced single-energy CT.

Dual-energy CT showed diagnostic potential comparable to dynamic contrast-enhanced CT.

Dual-energy CT is a promising method for efficient clinical treatment response evaluation.

Keywords

Dual-energy computed tomography Contrast media Drug monitoring Regorafenib Anti-angiogenesis effect 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The scientific guarantors of this publication are Gesine Knobloch and Gregor Jost, and both contributed equally to this study. The authors of this manuscript declare relationships with the following companies: Jost and Pietsch (Employee Bayer AG) and Huppertz (Employee Siemens AG).

The authors state that this work has not received any funding. One of the authors has significant statistical expertise. Approval from the institutional animal care committee was obtained. Methodology: prospective, randomised controlled trial, performed at one institution.

References

  1. 1.
    Therasse P, Arbuck SG, Eisenhauer EA et al (2000) New guidelines to evaluate the response to treatment in solid tumors. European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer, National Cancer Institute of the United States, National Cancer Institute of Canada. J Natl Cancer Inst 92(3):205–216PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Eisenhauer EA, Therasse P, Bogaerts J et al (2009) New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Eur J Cancer 45(2):228–247PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Motzer RJ, Hutson TE, Tomczak P et al (2007) Sunitinib versus interferon alfa in metastatic renal-cell carcinoma. N Engl J Med 356(2):115–124PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Benjamin RS, Choi H, Macapinlac HA et al (2007) We should desist using RECIST, at least in GIST. J Clin Oncol : Off J Am Soc Clin Oncol 25(13):1760–1764CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Choi H, Charnsangavej C, Faria SC et al (2007) Correlation of computed tomography and positron emission tomography in patients with metastatic gastrointestinal stromal tumor treated at a single institution with imatinib mesylate: proposal of new computed tomography response criteria. J Clin Oncol : Off J Am Soc Clin Oncol 25(13):1753–1759CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ratain MJ, Eisen T, Stadler WM et al (2006) Phase II placebo-controlled randomized discontinuation trial of sorafenib in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. J Clin Oncol Off J Am Soc Clin Oncol 24(16):2505–2512CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Faivre S, Delbaldo C, Vera K et al (2006) Safety, pharmacokinetic, and antitumor activity of SU11248, a novel oral multitarget tyrosine kinase inhibitor, in patients with cancer. J Clin Oncol Off J Am Soc Clin Oncol 24(1):25–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Choi H (2005) Critical issues in response evaluation on computed tomography: lessons from the gastrointestinal stromal tumor model. Curr Oncol Rep 7(4):307–311PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Goh V, Halligan S, Daley F, Wellsted DM, Guenther T, Bartram CI (2008) Colorectal tumor vascularity: quantitative assessment with multidetector CT–do tumor perfusion measurements reflect angiogenesis? Radiology 249(2):510–517PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    d’Assignies G, Couvelard A, Bahrami S et al (2009) Pancreatic endocrine tumors: tumor blood flow assessed with perfusion CT reflects angiogenesis and correlates with prognostic factors. Radiology 250(2):407–416PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kan ZX, Phongkitkarun S, Kobayashi S et al (2005) Functional CT for quantifying tumor perfusion in antiangiogenic therapy in a rat model. Radiology 237(1):151–158PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lee TY, Purdie TG, Stewart E (2003) CT imaging of angiogenesis. Q J Nucl Med 47(3):171–187PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lind JS, Meijerink MR, Dingemans AM et al (2010) Dynamic contrast-enhanced CT in patients treated with sorafenib and erlotinib for non-small cell lung cancer: a new method of monitoring treatment? Eur Radiol 20(12):2890–2898PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Cyran CC, Kazmierczak PM, Hirner H et al (2013) Regorafenib effects on human colon carcinoma xenografts monitored by dynamic contrast-enhanced computed tomography with immunohistochemical validation. PLoS ONE 8(9):e76009PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Yuan F, Chen Y, Dellian M, Safabakhsh N, Ferrara N, Jain RK (1996) Time-dependent vascular regression and permeability changes in established human tumor xenografts induced by an anti-vascular endothelial growth factor/vascular permeability factor antibody. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 93(25):14765–14770PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Winklehner A, Goetti R, Baumueller S et al (2011) Automated attenuation-based tube potential selection for thoracoabdominal computed tomography angiography: improved dose effectiveness. Invest Radiol 46(12):767–773PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Pontana F, Duhamel A, Pagniez J et al (2011) Chest computed tomography using iterative reconstruction vs filtered back projection (Part 2): image quality of low-dose CT examinations in 80 patients. Eur Radiol 21(3):636–643PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Brix G, Griebel J, Kiessling F, Wenz F (2010) Tracer kinetic modelling of tumour angiogenesis based on dynamic contrast-enhanced CT and MRI measurements. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 37(Suppl 1):S30–S51PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Johnson TRC, Krauss B, Sedlmair M et al (2007) Material differentiation by dual energy CT: initial experience. Eur Radiol 17(6):1510–1517PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Henzler T, Fink C, Schoenberg SO, Schoepf UJ (2012) Dual-Energy CT: Radiation Dose Aspects. Am J Roentgenol 199(5):S16–S25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Schenzle JC, Sommer WH, Neumaier K et al (2010) Dual Energy CT of the Chest: How About the Dose? Invest Radiol 45(6):347–353PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kerl JM, Bauer R, Maurer T et al (2011) Dose levels at coronary CT angiography—a comparison of dual energy-, dual source- and 16-slice CT. Eur Radiol 21(3):530–537PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Zordo T, Lutterotti K, Dejaco C et al (2012) Comparison of image quality and radiation dose of different pulmonary CTA protocols on a 128-slice CT: high-pitch dual source CT, dual energy CT and conventional spiral CT. Eur Radiol 22(2):279–286PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Simons D, Kachelriess M, Schlemmer HP (2014) Recent developments of dual-energy CT in oncology. Eur Radiol 24(4):930–939PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Eisen T, Joensuu H, Nathan PD et al (2012) Regorafenib for patients with previously untreated metastatic or unresectable renal-cell carcinoma: a single-group phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol 13(10):1055–1062PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Wilhelm SM, Dumas J, Adnane L et al (2011) Regorafenib (BAY 73-4506): a new oral multikinase inhibitor of angiogenic, stromal and oncogenic receptor tyrosine kinases with potent preclinical antitumor activity. Int J Cancer 129(1):245–255PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Mahnken AH, Klotz E, Pietsch H et al (2010) Quantitative whole heart stress perfusion CT imaging as noninvasive assessment of hemodynamics in coronary artery stenosis: preliminary animal experience. Invest Radiol 45(6):298–305PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Jost G, Pietsch H, Grenacher L (2013) Dynamic contrast-enhanced computed tomography to assess antitumor treatment effects: comparison of two contrast agents with different pharmacokinetics. Invest Radiol 48(10):715–721PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Apfaltrer P, Meyer M, Meier C et al (2012) Contrast-enhanced dual-energy CT of gastrointestinal stromal tumors: is iodine-related attenuation a potential indicator of tumor response? Invest Radiol 47(1):65–70PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Dai X, Schlemmer HP, Schmidt B et al (2013) Quantitative therapy response assessment by volumetric iodine-uptake measurement: initial experience in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma treated with sorafenib. Eur J Radiol 82(2):327–334PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© European Society of Radiology 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gesine Knobloch
    • 1
    Email author
  • Gregor Jost
    • 3
  • Alexander Huppertz
    • 2
  • Bernd Hamm
    • 1
  • Hubertus Pietsch
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of RadiologyCharité – Universitätsmedizin BerlinBerlinGermany
  2. 2.Imaging Science Institute Charité - SiemensBerlinGermany
  3. 3.MR and CT Contrast Media ResearchBayer HealthcareBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations