DCE-MRI is more sensitive than IVIM-DWI for assessing anti-angiogenic treatment-induced changes in colorectal liver metastases

Mihaela Rata, Khurum Khan, David J Collins, Dow-Mu Koh, Nina Tunariu, Maria Antonietta Bali, James d'Arcy, Jessica M Winfield, Simona Picchia, Nicola Valeri, Ian Chau, David Cunningham, Matteo Fassan, Martin O Leach, Matthew R Orton, Mihaela Rata, Khurum Khan, David J Collins, Dow-Mu Koh, Nina Tunariu, Maria Antonietta Bali, James d'Arcy, Jessica M Winfield, Simona Picchia, Nicola Valeri, Ian Chau, David Cunningham, Matteo Fassan, Martin O Leach, Matthew R Orton

Abstract

Background: Diffusion weighted imaging (DWI) with intravoxel incoherent motion (IVIM) modelling can inform on tissue perfusion without exogenous contrast administration. Dynamic-contrast-enhanced (DCE) MRI can also characterise tissue perfusion, but requires a bolus injection of a Gadolinium-based contrast agent. This study compares the use of DCE-MRI and IVIM-DWI methods in assessing response to anti-angiogenic treatment in patients with colorectal liver metastases in a cohort with confirmed treatment response.

Methods: This prospective imaging study enrolled 25 participants with colorectal liver metastases to receive Regorafenib treatment. A target metastasis > 2 cm in each patient was imaged before and at 15 days after treatment on a 1.5T MR scanner using slice-matched IVIM-DWI and DCE-MRI protocols. MRI data were motion-corrected and tumour volumes of interest drawn on b=900 s/mm2 diffusion-weighted images were transferred to DCE-MRI data for further analysis. The median value of four IVIM-DWI parameters [diffusion coefficient D (10-3 mm2/s), perfusion fraction f (ml/ml), pseudodiffusion coefficient D* (10-3 mm2/s), and their product fD* (mm2/s)] and three DCE-MRI parameters [volume transfer constant Ktrans (min-1), enhancement fraction EF (%), and their product KEF (min-1)] were recorded at each visit, before and after treatment. Changes in pre- and post-treatment measurements of all MR parameters were assessed using Wilcoxon signed-rank tests (P<0.05 was considered significant). DCE-MRI and IVIM-DWI parameter correlations were evaluated with Spearman rank tests. Functional MR parameters were also compared against Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumours v.1.1 (RECIST) evaluations.

Results: Significant treatment-induced reductions of DCE-MRI parameters across the cohort were observed for EF (91.2 to 50.8%, P<0.001), KEF (0.095 to 0.045 min-1, P<0.001) and Ktrans (0.109 to 0.078 min-1, P=0.002). For IVIM-DWI, only D (a non-perfusion parameter) increased significantly post treatment (0.83 to 0.97 × 10-3 mm2/s, P<0.001), while perfusion-related parameters showed no change. No strong correlations were found between DCE-MRI and IVIM-DWI parameters. A moderate correlation was found, after treatment, between Ktrans and D* (r=0.60; P=0.002) and fD* (r=0.67; P<0.001). When compared to RECIST v.1.1 evaluations, KEF and D correctly identified most clinical responders, whilst non-responders were incorrectly identified.

Conclusion: IVIM-DWI perfusion-related parameters showed limited sensitivity to the anti-angiogenic effects of Regorafenib treatment in colorectal liver metastases and showed low correlation with DCE-MRI parameters, despite profound and significant post-treatment reductions in DCE-MRI measurements.

Trial registration: NCT03010722 clinicaltrials.gov; registration date 6th January 2015.

Keywords: Clinical trial.; Colorectal liver metastasis; Dynamic contrast enhanced MRI (DCE-MRI); Intravoxel incoherent motion diffusion weighted imaging (IVIM-DWI); Perfusion.

Conflict of interest statement

MF received honoraria for consulting, advisory role, speaker bureau, and/or research funding from Astellas Pharma, QED Therapeutics, Diaceutics, Tesaro, Roche, Eli Lilly and Novartis.

NV received honoraria from Merck Serono, Pfizer, Bayer and Eli-Lilly.

DCum received honoraria from Bayer.

The remaining authors of this manuscript declare that they have no competing interests.

© 2021. The Author(s).

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Flowchart of the MR cohort
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
VOI-based data processing (example of one slice out of the 8 evaluated) for a 48 year old female patient with a lesion in segments 7/8 of the liver. VOI was drawn on the highest-b-value image (a), then transferred to the DCE-MRI subtraction image (b). The subtraction image was calculated as the difference between the dynamic image with peak enhancement within the liver parenchyma (dynamic 9/40) and the first pre-contrast image (dynamic 1/40). The VOIs were used in conjunction with each of the computed maps to derive the median values of parameters of interest: D (c) and Ktrans (d) are shown here. Note that Ktrans map is shown overlaid on the last dynamic image of the DCE-MRI acquisition (dynamic 40/40)
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Pre/post-treatment overlapped Ladder/Box plots of MR parameters from 25 liver metastases patients demonstrating significant response for all DCE-MRI parameters and D, but no significance for the three other IVIM-DWI parameters. Wilcoxon P-values are listed within the header
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Example MR parametric maps from a 59 year old male patient with liver metastasis before (top row) and after 15 days of treatment (bottom row); coronal plane
Fig. 5
Fig. 5
Scatter plots for IVIM-DWI perfusion parameters (D*, f and fD*) versus the DCE-MRI parameter (Ktrans) showing little correlation. Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient r and its corresponding P-value are shown for each plot. Only the four cases within a box framed with a solid line (i.e. D* and fD* versus Ktrans) were statistically significant. Pre- and post-treatment data from the main cohort of 25 patients with liver metastases
Fig. 6
Fig. 6
Bland-Altman plots for each IVIM-DWI parameter presenting values for the mean bias (and its P value), upper and lower limits of agreement and coefficient of variation. Data derived from the 5 patient repeatability cohort
Fig. 7
Fig. 7
Waterfall plots for the four most sensitive MR parameters: Ktrans (a), EF (b), KEF (b) and D (d) demonstrating a good identification of responders when using KEF and D parameters. The percentage change (relative to baseline value) for each MR parameter was calculated at day 15 post-treatment (25 patients), while the RECIST was performed at week 8 (21 patients)

References

    1. Dhillon S, Regorafenib A Review in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer. Drugs. 2018;78(11):1133–1144. doi: 10.1007/s40265-018-0938-y.
    1. Krishnamoorthy SK, Relias V, Sebastian S, Jayaraman V, Saif MW. Management of regorafenib-related toxicities: a review. Therap Adv Gastroenterol. 2015;8(5):285–297. doi: 10.1177/1756283X15580743.
    1. Padhani AR, Husband JE. Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI studies in oncology with an emphasis on quantification, validation and human studies. Clin Radiol. 2001;56(8):607–620. doi: 10.1053/crad.2001.0762.
    1. Leach MO, Brindle KM, Evelhoch JL, et al. The assessment of antiangiogenic and antivascular therapies in early-stage clinical trials using magnetic resonance imaging: issues and recommendations. Br J Cancer. 2005;92(9):1599–1610. doi: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6602550.
    1. Leach MO, Morgan B, Tofts PS, et al. Imaging vascular function for early stage clinical trials using dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging. Eur Radiol. 2012;22(7):1451–1464. doi: 10.1007/s00330-012-2446-x.
    1. Khan K, Rata M, Cunningham D, et al. Functional imaging and circulating biomarkers of response to regorafenib in treatment-refractory metastatic colorectal cancer patients in a prospective phase II study. Gut. 2018;67(8):1484–1492. doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2017-314178.
    1. Le Bihan D, Breton E, Lallemand D, Grenier P, Cabanis E, Laval-Jeantet M. MR imaging of intravoxel incoherent motions: application to diffusion and perfusion in neurologic disorders. Radiology. 1986;161(2):401–407. doi: 10.1148/radiology.161.2.3763909.
    1. Yamada I, Aung W, Himeno Y, Nakagawa T, Shibuya H. Diffusion coefficients in abdominal organs and hepatic lesions: evaluation with intravoxel incoherent motion echo-planar MR imaging. Radiology. 1999;210(3):617–623. doi: 10.1148/radiology.210.3.r99fe17617.
    1. Koh DM, Collins DJ, Orton MR. Intravoxel incoherent motion in body diffusion-weighted MRI: reality and challenges. Am J Roentgenol. 2011;196(6):1351–1361. doi: 10.2214/AJR.10.5515.
    1. Zhang H, Li W, Fu C, et al. Comparison of intravoxel incoherent motion imaging, diffusion kurtosis imaging, and conventional DWI in predicting the chemotherapeutic response of colorectal liver metastases. European Journal of Radiology 2020; 130109149.
    1. Granata V, Fusco R, Catalano O, et al. Early Assessment of Colorectal Cancer Patients with Liver Metastases Treated with Antiangiogenic Drugs: The Role of Intravoxel Incoherent Motion in Diffusion-Weighted Imaging. PLoS One. 2015;10(11):e0142876. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0142876.
    1. Chiaradia M, Baranes L, Van Nhieu JT, et al. Intravoxel incoherent motion (IVIM) MR imaging of colorectal liver metastases: are we only looking at tumor necrosis? J Magn Reson Imaging. 2014;39(2):317–325. doi: 10.1002/jmri.24172.
    1. Andreou A, Koh DM, Collins DJ, et al. Measurement reproducibility of perfusion fraction and pseudodiffusion coefficient derived by intravoxel incoherent motion diffusion-weighted MR imaging in normal liver and metastases. Eur Radiol. 2013;23(2):428–434. doi: 10.1007/s00330-012-2604-1.
    1. Yang X, Xiao X, Lu B, Chen Y, Wen Z, Yu S. Perfusion-sensitive parameters of intravoxel incoherent motion MRI in rectal cancer: evaluation of reproducibility and correlation with dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI. Acta Radiol. 2019;60(5):569–577. doi: 10.1177/0284185118791201.
    1. Sun H, Xu Y, Xu Q, et al. Correlation Between Intravoxel Incoherent Motion and Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging Parameters in Rectal Cancer. Acad Radiol. 2019;26(7):e134-e140. doi: 10.1016/j.acra.2018.08.012.
    1. Fram EK, Herfkens RJ, Johnson GA, et al. Rapid calculation of T1 using variable flip angle gradient refocused imaging. Magn Reson Imaging. 1987;5(3):201–208. doi: 10.1016/0730-725X(87)90021-X.
    1. Orton MR, Miyazaki K, Koh DM, et al. Optimizing functional parameter accuracy for breath-hold DCE-MRI of liver tumours. Phys Med Biol. 2009;54(7):2197–2215. doi: 10.1088/0031-9155/54/7/023.
    1. Kety SS. The theory and applications of the exchange of inert gas at the lungs and tissues. Pharmacol Rev. 1951;3(1):1–41.
    1. Tofts PS. Modeling tracer kinetics in dynamic Gd-DTPA MR imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging. 1997;7(1):91–101. doi: 10.1002/jmri.1880070113.
    1. Orton MR, d’Arcy JA, Walker-Samuel S, et al. Computationally efficient vascular input function models for quantitative kinetic modelling using DCE-MRI. Phys Med Biol. 2008;53(5):1225–1239. doi: 10.1088/0031-9155/53/5/005.
    1. Parker GJ, Roberts C, Macdonald A, et al. Experimentally-derived functional form for a population-averaged high-temporal-resolution arterial input function for dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI. Magn Reson Med. 2006;56(5):993–1000. doi: 10.1002/mrm.21066.
    1. d’Arcy JA, Collins DJ, Padhani AR, Walker-Samuel S, Suckling J, Leach MO. Informatics in Radiology (infoRAD): Magnetic Resonance Imaging Workbench: analysis and visualization of dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging data. Radiographics. 2006;26(2):621–632. doi: 10.1148/rg.262045187.
    1. Ferl GZ, O’Connor JPB, Parker GJM, et al. Mixed-effects modeling of clinical DCE-MRI data: Application to colorectal liver metastases treated with bevacizumab. Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging. 2015;41(1):132–141. doi: 10.1002/jmri.24514.
    1. Orton MR, Messiou C, Collins D, et al. Diffusion-weighted MR imaging of metastatic abdominal and pelvic tumours is sensitive to early changes induced by a VEGF inhibitor using alternative diffusion attenuation models. Eur Radiol. 2016;26(5):1412–1419. doi: 10.1007/s00330-015-3933-7.
    1. Henkelman RM. Does IVIM measure classical perfusion? Magnetic Resonance in Medicine. 1990;16(3):470–475. doi: 10.1002/mrm.1910160313.
    1. Bihan DL, Turner R. The capillary network: a link between ivim and classical perfusion. Magnetic Resonance in Medicine. 1992;27(1):171–178. doi: 10.1002/mrm.1910270116.
    1. Patel J, Sigmund EE, Rusinek H, Oei M, Babb JS, Taouli B. Diagnosis of cirrhosis with intravoxel incoherent motion diffusion MRI and dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI alone and in combination: preliminary experience. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2010;31(3):589–600. doi: 10.1002/jmri.22081.
    1. Hectors SJ, Wagner M, Besa C, et al. Intravoxel incoherent motion diffusion-weighted imaging of hepatocellular carcinoma: Is there a correlation with flow and perfusion metrics obtained with dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI? J Magn Reson Imaging. 2016;44(4):856–864. doi: 10.1002/jmri.25194.
    1. Kakite S, Dyvorne HA, Lee KM, Jajamovich GH, Knight-Greenfield A, and Taouli B. Hepatocellular carcinoma: IVIM diffusion quantification for prediction of tumor necrosis compared to enhancement ratios. Eur J Radiol Open 2016; 31–7.
    1. Hirashima Y, Yamada Y, Tateishi U, et al. Pharmacokinetic parameters from 3-Tesla DCE-MRI as surrogate biomarkers of antitumor effects of bevacizumab plus FOLFIRI in colorectal cancer with liver metastasis. Int J Cancer. 2012;130(10):2359–65. doi: 10.1002/ijc.26282.
    1. Hsu CY, Shen YC, Yu CW, et al. Dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging biomarkers predict survival and response in hepatocellular carcinoma patients treated with sorafenib and metronomic tegafur/uracil. J Hepatol. 2011;55(4):858–65. doi: 10.1016/j.jhep.2011.01.032.
    1. Shukla-Dave A, Obuchowski NA, Chenevert TL, et al. Quantitative imaging biomarkers alliance (QIBA) recommendations for improved precision of DWI and DCE-MRI derived biomarkers in multicenter oncology trials. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2019;49(7):e101-e121. doi: 10.1002/jmri.26518.
    1. Rata M, Collins DJ, Darcy J, et al. Assessment of repeatability and treatment response in early phase clinical trials using DCE-MRI: comparison of parametric analysis using MR- and CT-derived arterial input functions. Eur Radiol. 2016;26(7):1991–1998. doi: 10.1007/s00330-015-4012-9.

Source: PubMed

3
Subskrybuj