Advertisement

European Radiology

, Volume 28, Issue 11, pp 4735–4747 | Cite as

Diagnostic accuracy of CE-CT, MRI and FDG PET/CT for detecting colorectal cancer liver metastases in patients considered eligible for hepatic resection and/or local ablation

  • Kim Sivesgaard
  • Lars P. Larsen
  • Michael Sørensen
  • Stine Kramer
  • Sven Schlander
  • Nerijus Amanavicius
  • Arindam Bharadwaz
  • Dennis Tønner Nielsen
  • Frank Viborg Mortensen
  • Erik Morre Pedersen
Hepatobiliary-Pancreas
  • 330 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

To compare the diagnostic performance of contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CE-CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and combined fluorodeoxyglucose/positron emission tomography/computed tomography (FDG-PET/CT) for detection of colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) in patients eligible for local treatment.

Materials and methods

This health-research ethics-committee-approved prospective consecutive diagnostic accuracy study, with written informed consent, included 80 cases (76 patients, four participating twice) between 29 June 2015 and 7 February 2017. Prior chemotherapy or local treatment did not exclude participation. Combined FDG-PET/CT including CE-CT and MRI was performed within 0–3 days shortly before local treatment. CE-CT and MRI images were read independently by two readers for each modality. The combined FDG-PET/CT images were read independently by two pairs of readers. A composite reference standard was used. Sensitivities, specificities and area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUCROC) were calculated and compared.

Results

In total, 260 CRLMs were confirmed. The MRI readers had significantly higher per-lesion sensitivity (85.9% and 83.8%) than both CE-CT readers (69.1% and 62.3%) and both PET/CT reader pairs (72.0% and 72.1%) (p<0.001). There were no significant differences in per-lesion specificity. MRI readers had significantly higher AUCROC (0.92 and 0.88) than both CE-CT readers (0.80 and 0.82) (p≤0.001). AUCROC for MR reader 1 was higher than that of both PET/CT reader pairs (0.83 and 0.84) (p≤0.0001).

Conclusion

MRI performed significantly better than both CE-CT and combined FDG-PET/CT for detection of CRLM in consecutive patients eligible for local treatment irrespective of prior chemotherapy or local treatment.

Key Points

• Patients eligible for local treatment of colorectal liver-metastases require optimal imaging.

• In 80 consecutive patients, MRI had superior per lesion diagnostic performance.

• Findings were independent of prior treatment and type of planned local treatment.

• Equally, MRI had superior diagnostic performance on per segment basis.

Keywords

Colorectal neoplasms Neoplasm metastasis Magnetic resonance imaging Computed tomography Positron emission tomography computed tomography 

Abbreviations

AUC

Area under the curve

CRLM

Colorectal cancer liver metastases

DWI

Diffusion-weighted imaging

FFE

Fast field echo

MDT

Multidisciplinary tumour board

PDFF

Proton density fat fraction

ROC

Receiver operator characteristics

SS

Single shot

TSE

Turbo spin echo

Notes

Funding

This study has received funding by Dansk Kræftforsknings Fond, Riisfort Fonden, Beckett-Fonden and Direktør Emil C Hertz og hustru Inger Hertz’ Fond.

Compliance with ethical standards

Guarantor

The scientific guarantor of this publication is Erik Morre Pedersen, MD, PhD, DMSc.

Conflict of interest

The authors of this manuscript declare no relationships with any companies whose products or services may be related to the subject matter of the article.

Statistics and biometry

Associate Professor Niels Trolle Andersen, Department of Public Health – Department of Biostatistics, Aarhus University, kindly provided statistical advice regarding the use of the mixed effect logistic regression model.

Informed consent

Written informed consent was obtained from all patients in this study.

Ethical approval

Institutional Review Board approval was obtained.

Methodology

• prospective

• diagnostic study

• performed at one institution

References

  1. 1.
    Adam R, Pascal G, Azoulay D et al (2003) Liver resection for colorectal metastases: the third hepatectomy. Ann Surg 238:871–883 discussion 883–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gillams AR, Lees WR (2009) Five-year survival in 309 patients with colorectal liver metastases treated with radiofrequency ablation. Eur Radiol 19:1206–1213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Jones RP, Kokudo N, Folprecht G et al (2016) Colorectal Liver Metastases: A Critical Review of State of the Art. Liver Cancer 6:66–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Shady W, Petre EN, Gonen M et al (2016) Percutaneous Radiofrequency Ablation of Colorectal Cancer Liver Metastases: Factors Affecting Outcomes--A 10-year Experience at a Single Center. Radiology 278:601–611CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ricke J, Mohnike K, Pech M et al (2010) Local response and impact on survival after local ablation of liver metastases from colorectal carcinoma by computed tomography-guided high-dose-rate brachytherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 78:479–485CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Berger-Kulemann V, Schima W, Baroud S et al (2012) Gadoxetic acid-enhanced 3.0 T MR imaging versus multidetector-row CT in the detection of colorectal metastases in fatty liver using intraoperative ultrasound and histopathology as a standard of reference. Eur J Surg Oncol 38:670–676CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Scharitzer M, Ba-Ssalamah A, Ringl H et al (2013) Preoperative evaluation of colorectal liver metastases: comparison between gadoxetic acid-enhanced 3.0-T MRI and contrast-enhanced MDCT with histopathological correlation. Eur Radiol 23:2187–2196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kim HJ, Lee SS, Byun JH et al (2015) Incremental Value of Liver MR Imaging in Patients with Potentially Curable Colorectal Hepatic Metastasis Detected at CT: A Prospective Comparison of Diffusion-weighted Imaging, Gadoxetic Acid-enhanced MR Imaging, and a Combination of Both MR Techniques. Radiology 274:712–722CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Schulz A, Viktil E, Godt JC et al (2016) Diagnostic performance of CT, MRI and PET/CT in patients with suspected colorectal liver metastases: the superiority of MRI. Acta Radiol 57:1040–1048CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Asato N, Tsurusaki M, Sofue K et al (2017) Comparison of gadoxetic acid-enhanced dynamic MR imaging and contrast-enhanced computed tomography for preoperative evaluation of colorectal liver metastases. Jpn J Radiol 35:197–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jhaveri KS, Fischer SE, Hosseini-Nik H et al (2017) Prospective comparison of gadoxetic acid-enhanced liver MRI and contrast-enhanced CT with histopathological correlation for preoperative detection of colorectal liver metastases following chemotherapy and potential impact on surgical plan. HPB (Oxford) 19:992–1000CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Labianca R, Nordlinger B, Beretta GD, et al. (2013) Early colon cancer: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol 24 Suppl 6:vi64–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Van Cutsem E, Cervantes A, Adam R et al (2016) ESMO consensus guidelines for the management of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. Ann Oncol 27:1386–1422CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wicherts DA, de Haas RJ, Salloum C et al (2013) Repeat hepatectomy for recurrent colorectal metastases. Br J Surg 100:808–818CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Adam R, De Gramont A, Figueras J et al (2012) The oncosurgery approach to managing liver metastases from colorectal cancer: a multidisciplinary international consensus. Oncologist, In, pp 1225–1239Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Larsen PN, Lysholt C (2011) Kliniske retningslinier for behandling af Kolo-Rektale Levermetastaser (KRLM). Dansk Lever-Galdevejscancer Gruppe. Available via http://gicancer.dk/. Accessed 14 Nov 2017.
  17. 17.
    Bossuyt PM, Reitsma JB, Bruns DE et al (2015) STARD 2015: an updated list of essential items for reporting diagnostic accuracy studies. BMJ 351:h5527CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Tang A, Tan J, Sun M et al (2013) Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease: MR imaging of liver proton density fat fraction to assess hepatic steatosis. Radiology 267:422–431CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Vu K-N, Gilbert G, Chalut M et al (2016) MRI-determined liver proton density fat fraction, with MRS validation: Comparison of regions of interest sampling methods in patients with type 2 diabetes. J Magn Reson Imaging 43:1090–1099CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Genders TSS, Spronk S, Stijnen T et al (2012) Methods for calculating sensitivity and specificity of clustered data: a tutorial. Radiology 265:910–916CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Vilgrain V, Esvan M, Ronot M et al (2016) A meta-analysis of diffusion-weighted and gadoxetic acid-enhanced MR imaging for the detection of liver metastases. Eur Radiol 26:4595–4615CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Boellaard R, Delgado-Bolton R, Oyen WJG et al (2015) FDG PET/CT: EANM procedure guidelines for tumour imaging: version 2.0. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 42:328–354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kulemann V, Schima W, Tamandl D et al (2011) Preoperative detection of colorectal liver metastases in fatty liver: MDCT or MRI? Eur J Radiol 79:e1–e6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Chen I, Lorentzen T, Linnemann D et al (2016) Seeding after ultrasound-guided percutaneous biopsy of liver metastases in patients with colorectal or breast cancer. Acta Oncol 55:638–643CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Wessling J, Esseling R, Raupach R et al (2007) The effect of dose reduction and feasibility of edge-preserving noise reduction on the detection of liver lesions using MSCT. Eur Radiol 17:1885–1891CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Weg N, Scheer MR, Gabor MP (1998) Liver lesions: improved detection with dual-detector-array CT and routine 2.5-mm thin collimation. Radiology 209:417–426CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Soyer P, Poccard M, Boudiaf M et al (2004) Detection of hypovascular hepatic metastases at triple-phase helical CT: sensitivity of phases and comparison with surgical and histopathologic findings. Radiology 231:413–420CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© European Society of Radiology 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kim Sivesgaard
    • 1
  • Lars P. Larsen
    • 1
  • Michael Sørensen
    • 2
  • Stine Kramer
    • 3
  • Sven Schlander
    • 1
  • Nerijus Amanavicius
    • 1
  • Arindam Bharadwaz
    • 1
  • Dennis Tønner Nielsen
    • 1
  • Frank Viborg Mortensen
    • 4
  • Erik Morre Pedersen
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of RadiologyAarhus University HospitalAarhusDenmark
  2. 2.Department of Hepatology & GastroenterologyAarhus University HospitalAarhusDenmark
  3. 3.Department of Nuclear Medicine & PET-CentreAarhus University HospitalAarhusDenmark
  4. 4.Department of Surgery (section for upper gastrointestinal and hepato-pancreato-biliary surgery)Aarhus University HospitalAarhusDenmark

Personalised recommendations