Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-18T14:13:01.742Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

9 - Novel developments in MR assessment of treatment response after locoregional therapy

from Section II - Principles of image-guided therapies

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 September 2016

Kelly Fábrega-Foster
Affiliation:
Johns Hopkins University
Neda Rastegar
Affiliation:
Johns Hopkins University
Jean-François H. Geschwind
Affiliation:
Yale University School of Medicine
Ihab R. Kamel
Affiliation:
Johns Hopkins University
Jean-Francois H. Geschwind
Affiliation:
Yale University School of Medicine, Connecticut
Michael C. Soulen
Affiliation:
Department of Radiology, University of Pennsylvania Hospital, Philadelphia
Get access

Summary

Introduction: Multiparametric MRI

Precise and early assessment of treatment response is critical after locoregional therapy. In patients with unresectable tumors, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) represents an important tool for posttreatment follow-up. Its advantages include the absence of ionizing radiation and a sophisticated repertoire of anatomic, functional, and molecular imaging techniques. Multiparametric MRI combines several of these techniques in order to optimize tumor characterization and enable superior assessment of treatment response. The goal of multiparametric MRI is to permit elucidation of a “tumor-imaging phenotype” by maximally exploiting these techniques. The tumor-imaging phenotype may assist in predicting and assessing response to a variety of anticancer therapies. Posttreatment imaging parameters such as alterations in contrast enhancement and apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values may serve as treatment response biomarkers.

Widespread reliance on imaging biomarkers of treatment response demands a certain degree of scientific rigor. The ideal imaging biomarker must satisfy at least four criteria. First, it must permit early assessment of treatment response, allowing timely modification of treatment regimens and preventing unnecessary toxicity to patients. Second, it must enable reproducible quantifications of treatment response. This presupposes a clear appraisal of measurement error such that chance variation can be reliably distinguished from true response. Third, it must be capable of contending with tumor heterogeneity. Tumors represent intrinsically complex and heterogeneous ecosystems, a fact reflected in their treatment response. Variable degrees of posttreatment necrosis may be seen in a single tumor. Targeted retreatment of tumors depends on the imaging modality's ability to represent this variability with high fidelity. Fourth, it must be able to predict not only surrogate endpoints, but also survival. Surrogate endpoints include alterations in lesion characteristics over time, be these anatomic or functional. The optimal endpoint, however, is patient survival.

Cross-sectional assessment of treatment response has traditionally been based on anatomic imaging criteria. Stratification of patients into response categories has relied on changes in tumor size, with measurements obtained in the axial plane. The limitations of these anatomic criteria have encouraged the use of functional and molecular imaging biomarkers in the response assessment. The repertoire of functional MRI techniques includes: diffusion-weighted MRI (DW-MRI), dynamic and dual-phase contrast-enhanced MRI (DCE- and CE-MRI), MRI spectroscopy, and positron emission tomography (PET) MRI.

Type
Chapter
Information
Interventional Oncology
Principles and Practice of Image-Guided Cancer Therapy
, pp. 77 - 84
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2016

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Figueiras, RG, Padhani, AR, Goh, VJ, Vilanova, JC, Gonzalez, SB, Martin, CV, et al. Novel oncologic drugs: what they do and how they affect images. Radiographics 2011; 31 (7): 2059–2091.Google Scholar
2. Padhani, AR, Khan, AA. Diffusion-weighted (DW) and dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for monitoring anticancer therapy. Target Oncol 2010; 5 (1): 39–52.Google Scholar
3. Therasse, P, Arbuck, SG, Eisenhauer, EA, Wanders, J, Kaplan, RS, Rubinstein, L, et al. 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 2000; 92 (3): 205–216.Google Scholar
4. Padhani, AR, Miles, KA. Multiparametric imaging of tumor response to therapy. Radiology 2010; 256 (2): 348–364.Google Scholar
5. Jaffe, CC. Measures of response: RECIST, WHO, and new alternatives. J Clin Oncol 2006; 24 (20): 3245–3251.Google Scholar
6. Kamel, IR, Bluemke, DA. Magnetic resonance imaging of the liver: assessing response to treatment. Top Magn Reson Imaging 2002; 13 (3): 191–200.Google Scholar
7. Bruix, J, Sherman, M, Llovet, JM, Beaugrand, M, Lencioni, R, Burroughs, AK, et al. Clinical management of hepatocellular carcinoma. Conclusions of the Barcelona-2000 EASL conference. European Association for the Study of the Liver. J Hepatol 2001; 35 (3): 421–430.Google Scholar
8. Lencioni, R, Llovet, JM. Modified RECIST (mRECIST) assessment for hepatocellular carcinoma. Semin Liver Dis 2010; 30 (1): 52–60.Google Scholar
9. Reyes, DK, Vossen, JA, Kamel, IR, Azad, NS, Wahlin, TA, Torbenson, MS, et al. Single-center phase II trial of transarterial chemoembolization with drug-eluting beads for patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: initial experience in the United States. Cancer J 2009; 15 (6): 526–532.Google Scholar
10. Kamel, IR, Liapi, E, Reyes, DK, Zahurak, M, Bluemke, DA, Geschwind, JF. Unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: serial early vascular and cellular changes after transarterial chemoembolization as detected with MR imaging. Radiology 2009; 250 (2): 466–473.Google Scholar
11. Padhani, AR. Diffusion magnetic resonance imaging in cancer patient management. Semin Radiat Oncol 2011; 21 (2): 119–140.Google Scholar
12. Padhani, AR, Liu, G, Koh, DM, Chenevert, TL, Thoeny, HC, Takahara, T, et al. Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging as a cancer biomarker: consensus and recommendations. Neoplasia 2009; 11 (2): 102–125.Google Scholar
13. Chandarana, H, Taouli, B. Diffusion and perfusion imaging of the liver. Eur J Radiol 2010; 76 (3): 348–358.Google Scholar
14. Vossen, JA, Buijs, M, Geschwind, JF, Liapi, E, Ventura, V Prieto, Lee, KH, et al. Diffusion-weighted and Gd-EOB-DTPA-contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging for characterization of tumor necrosis in an animal model. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2009; 33 (4): 626–630.Google Scholar
15. Padhani, A. Unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: serial early vascular and cellular changes after transarterial chemoembolization. Radiology 2009; 250 (2): 324–326.Google Scholar
16. Bonekamp, S, Shen, J, Salibi, N, Lai, HC, Geschwind, J, Kamel, IR. Early response of hepatic malignancies to locoregional therapy-value of diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging and proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2011; 35 (2): 167–173.Google Scholar
17. Corona-Villalobos, CP, Pan, L, Halappa, VG, Bonekamp, S, Lorenz, CH, Eng, J, et al. Agreement and reproducibility of apparent diffusion coefficient measurements of dual-b-value and multi-b-value diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging at 1.5 Tesla in phantom and in soft tissues of the abdomen. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2013; 37 (1): 46–51.Google Scholar
18. Bilgili, MY. Reproductibility of apparent diffusion coefficients measurements in diffusion-weighted MRI of the abdomen with different b values. Eur J Radiol 2012; 81 (9): 2066–2068.Google Scholar
19. Li, SP, Padhani, AR. Tumor response assessments with diffusion and perfusion MRI. J Magn Reson Imaging 2012; 35 (4): 745–763.Google Scholar
20. Taouli, B, Johnson, RS, Hajdu, CH, Oei, MT, Merad, M, Yee, H, et al. Hepatocellular carcinoma: perfusion quantification with dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2013; 201 (4): 795–800.Google Scholar
21. Baron, RL. Understanding and optimizing use of contrast material for CT of the liver. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1994; 163 (2): 323–331.Google Scholar
22. Bonekamp, S, Bonekamp, D, Geschwind, JF, Corona-Villalobos, CP, Reyes, DK, Pawlik, TM, et al. Response stratification and survival analysis of hepatocellular carcinoma patients treated with intra-arterial therapy using MR imaging-based arterial enhancement fraction. J Magn Reson Imaging 2014; 40 (5): 1103–1111.Google Scholar
23. Prasad, SR, Jhaveri, KS, Saini, S, Hahn, PF, Halpern, EF, Sumner, JE. CT tumor measurement for therapeutic response assessment: comparison of unidimensional, bidimensional, and volumetric techniques initial observations. Radiology 2002; 225 (2): 416–419.Google Scholar
24. Mozley, PD, Schwartz, LH, Bendtsen, C, Zhao, B, Petrick, N, Buckler, AJ. Change in lung tumor volume as a biomarker of treatment response: a critical review of the evidence. Ann Oncol 2010; 21 (9): 1751–1755.Google Scholar
25. Hadjiiski, L, Mukherji, SK, Gujar, SK, Sahiner, B, Ibrahim, M, Street, E, et al. Treatment response assessment of head and neck cancers on CT using computerized volume analysis. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2010; 31 (9): 1744–1751.Google Scholar
26. Bonekamp, S, Li, Z, Geschwind, JF, Halappa, VG, Corona-Villalobos, CP, Reyes, D, et al. Unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: MR imaging after intraarterial therapy. Part I. Identification and validation of volumetric functional response criteria. Radiology 2013; 268 (2): 420–430.Google Scholar
27. Bonekamp, S, Halappa, VG, Geschwind, JF, Li, Z, Corona-Villalobos, CP, Reyes, D, et al. Unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: MR imaging after intraarterial therapy. Part II. Response stratification using volumetric functional criteria after intraarterial therapy. Radiology 2013; 268 (2): 431–439.Google Scholar
28. Bonekamp, S, Jolepalem, P, Lazo, M, Gulsun, MA, Kiraly, AP, Kamel, IR. Hepatocellular carcinoma: response to TACE assessed with semiautomated volumetric and functional analysis of diffusion-weighted and contrast-enhanced MR imaging data. Radiology 2011; 260 (3): 752–761.Google Scholar
29. Li, Z, Bonekamp, S, Halappa, VG, Corona-Villalobos, CP, Pawlik, T, Bhagat, N, et al. Islet cell liver metastases: assessment of volumetric early response with functional MR imaging after transarterial chemoembolization. Radiology 2012; 264 (1): 97–109.Google Scholar
30. Halappa, VG, Bonekamp, S, Corona-Villalobos, CP, Li, Z, Mensa, M, Reyes, D, et al. Intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma treated with local-regional therapy: quantitative volumetric apparent diffusion coefficient maps for assessment of tumor response. Radiology 2012; 264 (1): 285–294.Google Scholar
31. Halappa, V Gowdra, Corona-Villalobos, CP, Bonekamp, S, Li, Z, Reyes, D, Cosgrove, D, et al. Neuroendocrine liver metastasis treated by using intraarterial therapy: volumetric functional imaging biomarkers of early tumor response and survival. Radiology 2013; 266 (2): 502–513.Google Scholar
32. Bonekamp, D, Bonekamp, S, Halappa, VG, Geschwind, JF, Eng, J, Corona-Villalobos, CP, et al. Interobserver agreement of semi-automated and manual measurements of functional MRI metrics of treatment response in hepatocellular carcinoma. Eur J Radiol 2014; 83 (3): 487–496.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×