Update on the role of imaging in management of metastatic colorectal cancer

Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Colorectal Cancer Metastasis to the Liver: Comparative Effectiveness Research for the Choice of Contrast Agents

Purpose

This study was conducted to compare the diagnostic performance and early recurrence rate between gadoxetic acid–enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (Gd-EOB-MRI) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with extracellular contrast agent (ECA-MRI) for evaluating hepatic lesions in colorectal cancer.

Materials and Methods

Between 2005 and 2010, 418 colorectal cancer patients with both preoperative computed tomography (CT) and liver MRI were retrospectively reviewed. Image analysis was based on initial radiologic reports, and diagnostic performance was assessed based on the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC). The early intrahepatic recurrence rate within 6 months was then evaluated.

Results

Overall, 291 and 127 patients underwent Gd-EOB-MRI and ECA-MRI, respectively. The AUROCs were not significantly different between Gd-EOB-MRI (0.990; 95% CI, 0.980 to 0.999) and ECA-MRI (0.985; 95% CI, 0.968 to 1.000; p=0.836). When compared with CT alone, ECA-MRI detected additional 21 lesions in 14 patients (14/127, 11.0%), whereas Gd-EOB-MRI detected 56 lesions in 33 patients (33/291, 11.3%) without a significant difference between two MRI groups (p=0.331). The early recurrence rate in the ECA-MRI (28.6%) was significantly higher than that in the Gd-EOB-MRI (11.6%) for patients who underwent hepatic resection (p=0.031).

Conclusion

Gd-EOB-MRI is potentially better than ECA-MRI for decreasing the early intrahepatic recurrence rate, although the two MRI modalities showed comparable diagnostic performance in colorectal cancer patients.

Altered tolbutamide pharmacokinetics by a decrease in hepatic expression of CYP2C6/11 in rats pretreated with 5-fluorouracil

1. We investigated the change in the pharmacokinetic profile of tolbutamide (TB), a substrate for CYP2C6/11, 4 days after single administration of 5-fluorouracil (5-FU), and the hepatic gene expression and activity of CYP2C6/11 were also examined in 5-FU-pretreated rats. 2. Regarding the pharmacokinetic parameters of the 5-FU group, the area under the curve (AUC) was significantly increased, and correspondingly, the elimination rate constant at the terminal phase (k_e) was significantly decreased without significant change in the volume of distribution at the steady state (Vd_ss). 3. The metabolic production of 4-hydroxylated TB in hepatic microsomes was significantly reduced by the administration of 5-FU. 4. The expression level of mRNAs for hepatic CYP2C6 and CYP2C11 was significantly lower than in the control group when the rats were pretreated with 5-FU. 5. These results demonstrated that the pharmacokinetic profile of TB was altered by the treatment with 5-FU through a metabolic process, which may be responsible for the decreased CYP2C6/11 expression at mRNA levels.

Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasonography in Evaluation of the Therapeutic Effect of Chemotherapy for Patients with Liver Metastases

BACKGROUND

The therapeutic effect of chemotherapy for liver metastases is currently determined by changes in tumor diameter depicted on computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging, but it cannot accurately determine if there is central necrosis. Furthermore, due to the risk of radiation exposure and high cost, frequent examination using these methods places a heavy burden on patients. Meanwhile, real-time observation of blood flow and vessel morphology within tumors has become possible by contrast-enhanced ultrasonography (CEUS). However, use of CEUS in evaluating the therapeutic effect of anticancer chemotherapy has rarely been investigated. This study investigated whether changes in the time-intensity curve (TIC) of CEUS are useful indicators of the therapeutic effect of chemotherapy.

METHODS

Five patients with liver metastases who had undergone CEUS before and after chemotherapy were included in this study. The TIC of each time point was prepared to examine whether the following five TIC parameters serve as indicators of the therapeutic effect of chemotherapy: peak intensity, time to wash-in, time to peak intensity, slope of wash-in, and area under the curve. In each parameter, rate of change (ROC) was calculated by the expression [(values before chemotherapy minus those after chemotherapy)/those before chemotherapy × 100(%)].

RESULTS

(i) Among the five TIC parameters tested, ROC of the slope of wash-in and the area under the curve reflected the therapeutic effect of chemotherapy better than the remaining three parameters. (ii) TIC parameters after one cycle of chemotherapy were examined in two of five patients, and changes in the slope of wash-in and the area under the curve were in good agreement with the computed tomography findings indicative of the therapeutic effect after the fourth chemotherapy cycle.

CONCLUSION

The findings of this study suggest that ROC of the slope of wash-in and the area under the curve of the TIC are useful in evaluating the therapeutic effect of chemotherapy. Furthermore, there is a possibility that TIC analysis may enable early prediction of the therapeutic effect.

An overview of imaging techniques for liver metastases management

Evaluation of liver metastases is one of the most common indications for liver imaging. Imaging plays a key role in the of assessment liver metastases. A variety of imaging techniques, including ultrasonography, computed tomography, MRI and PET combined with CT scan are available for diagnosis, planning treatment, and follow-up treatment response. In this paper, the authors present the role of imaging for the assessment of liver metastases and the contribution of each of the different imaging techniques for their evaluation and management. Following recent developments in the field of oncology, the authors also present the importance of imaging for the assessment of liver metastases response to therapy. Finally, future perspectives on imaging of liver metastases are presented.

Imaging in Colorectal Cancer: Progress and Challenges for the Clinicians

The use of imaging in colorectal cancer (CRC) has significantly evolved over the last twenty years, establishing important roles in surveillance, diagnosis, staging, treatment selection and follow up. The range of modalities has broadened with the development of novel tracer and contrast agents, and the fusion of technologies such as positron emission tomography (PET) and computed tomography (CT). Traditionally, the most widely used modality for assessing treatment response in metastasised colon and rectal tumours is CT, combined with use of the RECIST guidelines. However, a growing body of evidence suggests that tumour size does not always adequately correlate with clinical outcomes. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is a more versatile technique and dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE)-MRI and diffusion-weighted (DW)-MRI may be used to evaluate biological and functional effects of treatment. Integrated fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG)-PET/CT combines metabolic and anatomical imaging to improve sensitivity and specificity of tumour detection, and a number of studies have demonstrated improved diagnostic accuracy of this modality in a variety of tumour types, including CRC. These developments have enabled the progression of treatment strategies in rectal cancer and improved the detection of hepatic metastatic disease, yet are not without their limitations. These include technical, economical and logistical challenges, along with a lack of robust evidence for standardisation and formal guidance. In order to successfully apply these novel imaging techniques and utilise their benefit to provide truly personalised cancer care, advances need to be clinically realised in a routine and robust manner.

Role of imaging for patients with colorectal hepatic metastases: what the radiologist needs to know

Surgical resection of colorectal metastatic disease has increased as surgeons have adopted a more aggressive ideology. Current exclusion criteria are patients for whom a negative resection margin is not feasible or a future liver remnant (FLR) of greater than 20% is not achievable. The goal of preoperative imaging is to identify the number and distribution of liver metastases, in addition to establishing their relation to relevant intrahepatic structures. FLR can be calculated utilizing cross-sectional imaging to select out patients at risk for hepatic dysfunction after resection. MRI, specifically with gadoxetic acid contrast, is currently the preferred modality for assessment of hepatic involvement for patients with newly diagnosed colorectal cancer, to include those who have undergone neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Employment of liver-directed therapies has recently expanded and they may provide an alternative to hepatectomy in order to obtain locoregional control in poor surgical candidates or convert patients with initially unresectable disease into surgical candidates.

Magnetic Resonance Imaging of Liver Metastasis

Liver magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is becoming the gold standard in liver metastasis detection and treatment response assessment. The most sensitive magnetic resonance sequences are diffusion-weighted images and hepatobiliary phase images after Gd-EOB-DTPA. Peripheral ring enhancement, diffusion restriction, and hypointensity on hepatobiliary phase images are hallmarks of liver metastases. In patients with normal ultrasonography, computed tomography (CT), and positron emission tomography (PET)-CT findings and high clinical suspicion of metastasis, MRI should be performed for diagnosis of unseen metastasis. In melanoma, colon cancer, and neuroendocrine tumor metastases, MRI allows confident diagnosis of treatment-related changes in liver and enables differential diagnosis from primary liver tumors. Focal nodular hyperplasia-like nodules in patients who received platinum-based chemotherapy, hypersteatosis, and focal fat can mimic metastasis. In cancer patients with fatty liver, MRI should be preferred to CT. Although the first-line imaging for metastases is CT, MRI can be used as a problem-solving method. MRI may be used as the first-line method in patients who would undergo curative surgery or metastatectomy. Current limitation of MRI is low sensitivity for metastasis smaller than 3mm. MRI fingerprinting, glucoCEST MRI, and PET-MRI may allow simpler and more sensitive diagnosis of liver metastasis.

Current evidence for the diagnostic value of gadoxetic acid-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging for liver metastasis

A variety of imaging techniques, including ultrasonography (US), multidetector computed tomography (MDCT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and positron emission tomography combined with CT scan (PET/CT), are available for diagnosis and treatment planning in liver metastasis. Contrast-enhanced MDCT is a relatively non-invasive, widely available and standardized method for hepatic work-up. Gadoxetic acid (gadolinium-ethoxybenzyl-diethylenetriamine pentaacetic acid; EOB Primovist®]) is a recently developed liver-specific hepatobiliary MR contrast agent that offers both dynamic imaging as well as liver-specific static hepatocyte imaging, referred to as the hepatobiliary phase. Following contrast injection, this technique reveals dynamic vascular phases (arterial, portal venous and delayed phases), in addition to the hepatobiliary phase upon uptake by functional hepatocytes. The overall sensitivity of gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI was significantly higher than that of contrast-enhanced CT. Specifically, the higher sensitivity of gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI was observed in lesions smaller than 1 cm in diameter. Gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI is considered an extremely useful tool for the diagnosis of liver metastases. Future studies will focus on diagnostic algorithms involving combinations of modalities such as MRI, MDCT and/or (18) F-fluorodeoxyglucose PET/CT, which may impact the treatment plan for these patients.

Hepatic imaging following intra-arterial embolotherapy

PURPOSE

To discuss guidelines and salient imaging findings of solid tumors treated with common intra-arterial procedures used in interventional oncology.

METHODS

A meticulous literature search of PubMed-indexed articles was conducted. Key words included "imaging + embolization," "imaging + TACE," "imaging + radioembolization," "imaging + Y90," "mRECIST," and "EASL." Representative post-treatment cross-sectional images were obtained from past cases in this institution.

RESULTS

Intra-arterial therapy (IAT) in interventional oncology includes bland embolization, chemoembolization, and radioembolization. Solid tumors of the liver are the primary focus of these procedures. Cross-sectional CT and/or MR are the main modalities used to image tumors after treatment. Traditional size-based response criteria (WHO and RECIST) alone are of limited utility in determining response to IAT; tumoral necrosis and enhancement must be considered. Specifically for HCC, the EASL and mRECIST guidelines are becoming widely adopted response criteria to assess these factors. DWI, FDG-PET, and CEUS are modalities that play an adjunctive but controversial role.

CONCLUSIONS

Radiologists must be aware that the different forms of intra-arterial therapy yield characteristic findings on cross-sectional imaging. Knowledge of these findings is integral to accurate assessment of tumor response and progression.

Regenerative liver surgeries: the alphabet soup of emerging techniques

New surgical procedures taking advantage of the regenerative abilities of the liver are being introduced as potential curative therapies to these patients either to provide auxiliary support while the native liver recovers or undergoes hypertrophy. For patients with hepatocellular carcinoma outside of the Milan criteria or bilobar colorectal metastases liver transplantation is not an option. Fulminant hepatic failure can be treated but requires life-long immunosuppression. These complex surgical procedures require high quality and directed imaging.

Focal liver lesions: Practical magnetic resonance imaging approach

With the widespread of cross-sectional imaging, a growth of incidentally detected focal liver lesions (FLL) has been observed. A reliable detection and characterization of FLL is critical for optimal patient management. Maximizing accuracy of imaging in the context of FLL is paramount in avoiding unnecessary biopsies, which may result in post-procedural complications. A tremendous development of new imaging techniques has taken place during these last years. Nowadays, Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) plays a key role in management of liver lesions, using a radiation-free technique and a safe contrast agent profile. MRI plays a key role in the non-invasive correct characterization of FLL. MRI is capable of providing comprehensive and highly accurate diagnostic information, with the additional advantage of lack of harmful ionizing radiation. These properties make MRI the mainstay for the noninvasive evaluation of focal liver lesions. In this paper we review the state-of-the-art MRI liver protocol, briefly discussing different sequence types, the unique characteristics of imaging non-cooperative patients and discuss the role of hepatocyte-specific contrast agents. A review of the imaging features of the most common benign and malignant FLL is presented, supplemented by a schematic representation of a simplistic practical approach on MRI.

Use of Imaging for GI Cancers

GI cancers are a heterogeneous group of neoplasms that differ in their biologic and physical behaviors depending on the organ of origin, location within the organ, and degree of differentiation. As a result, evaluation of these tumors is complex, requiring integration of information from a patient's clinical history, physical examination, laboratory data, and imaging. With advances in anatomic and functional imaging techniques, we now have tools for assessing patients with these tumors at diagnosis, staging, and treatment assessment. It is difficult for a single imaging modality to provide all the necessary information for a given GI tumor. However, well-chosen combinations of available imaging modalities based on the indications, strength, and limitations of the modalities will provide optimal evaluation of patients with these malignancies.