Lipiodol as an intra-procedural imaging biomarker for liver tumor response to transarterial chemoembolization: Post-hoc analysis of a prospective clinical trial.
Imaging biomarker
Lipiodol
Liver cancer
TACE
Tumor response
ceMRI
Journal
Clinical imaging
ISSN: 1873-4499
Titre abrégé: Clin Imaging
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 8911831
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Oct 2021
Oct 2021
Historique:
received:
31
08
2020
revised:
12
05
2021
accepted:
16
05
2021
pubmed:
23
5
2021
medline:
18
8
2021
entrez:
22
5
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The use of the ethiodized oil- Lipiodol in conventional trans-arterial chemoembolization (cTACE) ensures radiopacity to visualize drug delivery in the process of providing selective drug targeting to hepatic cancers and arterial embolization. Lipiodol functions as a carrier of chemo drugs for targeted therapy, as an embolic agent, augmenting the drug effect by efflux into the portal veins as well as a predictor for the tumor response and survival. To prospectively evaluate the role of 3D quantitative assessment of intra-procedural Lipiodol deposition in liver tumors on CBCT immediately after cTACE as a predictive biomarker for the outcome of cTACE. This was a post-hoc analysis of data from an IRB-approved prospective clinical trial. Thirty-two patients with hepatocellular carcinoma or liver metastases underwent contrast enhanced CBCT obtained immediately after cTACE, unenhanced MDCT at 24 h after cTACE, and follow-up imaging 30-, 90- and 180-days post-procedure. Lipiodol deposition was quantified on CBCT after cTACE and was characterized by 4 ordinal levels: ≤25%, >25-50%, >50-75%, >75%. Tumor response was assessed on follow-up MRI. Lipiodol deposition on imaging, correlation between Lipiodol deposition and tumor response criteria, and correlation between Lipiodol coverage and median overall survival (MOS) were evaluated. Image analysis demonstrated a high degree of agreement between the Lipiodol deposition on CBCT and the 24 h post-TACE CT, with a Bland-Altman plot of Lipiodol deposition on imaging demonstrated a bias of 2.75, with 95%-limits-of-agreement: -16.6 to 22.1%. An inverse relationship between Lipiodol deposition in responders versus non-responders for two-dimensional EASL reached statistical significance at 30 days (p = 0.02) and 90 days (p = 0.05). Comparing the Lipiodol deposition in Modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (mRECIST) responders versus non-responders showed a statistically significant higher volumetric deposition in responders for European Association for the Study of the Liver (EASL)-30d, EASL-90d, and quantitative EASL-180d. The correlation between the relative Lipiodol deposition and the change in enhancing tumor volume showed a negative association post-cTACE (30-day: p < 0.001; rho = -0.63). A Kaplan-Meier analysis for patients with high vs. low Lipiodol deposition showed a MOS of 46 vs. 33 months (p = 0.05). 3D quantification of Lipiodol deposition on intra-procedural CBCT is a predictive biomarker of outcome in patients with primary or metastatic liver cancer undergoing cTACE. There are spatial and volumetric agreements between 3D quantification of Lipiodol deposition on intra-procedural CBCT and 24 h post-cTACE MDCT. The spatial and volumetric agreement between Lipiodol deposition on intra-procedural CBCT and 24 h post-cTACE MDCT could suggest that acquiring MDCT 24 h after cTACE is redundant. Importantly, the demonstrated relationship between levels of tumor coverage with Lipiodol and degree and timeline of tumor response after cTACE underline the role of Lipiodol as an intra-procedural surrogate for tumor response, with potential implications for the prediction of survival.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The use of the ethiodized oil- Lipiodol in conventional trans-arterial chemoembolization (cTACE) ensures radiopacity to visualize drug delivery in the process of providing selective drug targeting to hepatic cancers and arterial embolization. Lipiodol functions as a carrier of chemo drugs for targeted therapy, as an embolic agent, augmenting the drug effect by efflux into the portal veins as well as a predictor for the tumor response and survival.
PURPOSE
OBJECTIVE
To prospectively evaluate the role of 3D quantitative assessment of intra-procedural Lipiodol deposition in liver tumors on CBCT immediately after cTACE as a predictive biomarker for the outcome of cTACE.
MATERIALS & METHODS
METHODS
This was a post-hoc analysis of data from an IRB-approved prospective clinical trial. Thirty-two patients with hepatocellular carcinoma or liver metastases underwent contrast enhanced CBCT obtained immediately after cTACE, unenhanced MDCT at 24 h after cTACE, and follow-up imaging 30-, 90- and 180-days post-procedure. Lipiodol deposition was quantified on CBCT after cTACE and was characterized by 4 ordinal levels: ≤25%, >25-50%, >50-75%, >75%. Tumor response was assessed on follow-up MRI. Lipiodol deposition on imaging, correlation between Lipiodol deposition and tumor response criteria, and correlation between Lipiodol coverage and median overall survival (MOS) were evaluated.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Image analysis demonstrated a high degree of agreement between the Lipiodol deposition on CBCT and the 24 h post-TACE CT, with a Bland-Altman plot of Lipiodol deposition on imaging demonstrated a bias of 2.75, with 95%-limits-of-agreement: -16.6 to 22.1%. An inverse relationship between Lipiodol deposition in responders versus non-responders for two-dimensional EASL reached statistical significance at 30 days (p = 0.02) and 90 days (p = 0.05). Comparing the Lipiodol deposition in Modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (mRECIST) responders versus non-responders showed a statistically significant higher volumetric deposition in responders for European Association for the Study of the Liver (EASL)-30d, EASL-90d, and quantitative EASL-180d. The correlation between the relative Lipiodol deposition and the change in enhancing tumor volume showed a negative association post-cTACE (30-day: p < 0.001; rho = -0.63). A Kaplan-Meier analysis for patients with high vs. low Lipiodol deposition showed a MOS of 46 vs. 33 months (p = 0.05).
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
3D quantification of Lipiodol deposition on intra-procedural CBCT is a predictive biomarker of outcome in patients with primary or metastatic liver cancer undergoing cTACE. There are spatial and volumetric agreements between 3D quantification of Lipiodol deposition on intra-procedural CBCT and 24 h post-cTACE MDCT. The spatial and volumetric agreement between Lipiodol deposition on intra-procedural CBCT and 24 h post-cTACE MDCT could suggest that acquiring MDCT 24 h after cTACE is redundant. Importantly, the demonstrated relationship between levels of tumor coverage with Lipiodol and degree and timeline of tumor response after cTACE underline the role of Lipiodol as an intra-procedural surrogate for tumor response, with potential implications for the prediction of survival.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34022765
pii: S0899-7071(21)00215-1
doi: 10.1016/j.clinimag.2021.05.007
pmc: PMC8364875
mid: NIHMS1706702
pii:
doi:
Substances chimiques
Biomarkers
0
Ethiodized Oil
8008-53-5
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
194-200Subventions
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : R01 CA160771
Pays : United States
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : R01 CA206180
Pays : United States
Organisme : NCATS NIH HHS
ID : UL1 TR001863
Pays : United States
Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Références
Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2013 Jun;11(6):604-11; quiz e43-4
pubmed: 23357493
Cancer. 1981 Jan 1;47(1):207-14
pubmed: 7459811
Radiology. 2013 Feb;266(2):636-48
pubmed: 23143027
PLoS One. 2016 Jan 11;11(1):e0145546
pubmed: 26752696
Eur Radiol. 2021 May;31(5):3002-3014
pubmed: 33063185
Liver Int. 2015 Sep;35(9):2155-66
pubmed: 25752327
Sci Rep. 2020 Oct 22;10(1):18026
pubmed: 33093524
Cancer Treat Rev. 2019 Jan;72:28-36
pubmed: 30447470
Korean J Radiol. 2009 Sep-Oct;10(5):425-34
pubmed: 19721826
Hepatology. 1989 Jul;10(1):98-102
pubmed: 2544499
CA Cancer J Clin. 2018 Nov;68(6):394-424
pubmed: 30207593
Eur Radiol. 2016 Jan;26(1):103-13
pubmed: 25994198
Expert Rev Anticancer Ther. 2015 Feb;15(2):199-205
pubmed: 25371052
Semin Oncol. 1983 Jun;10(2):176-82
pubmed: 6346495
Contemp Oncol (Pozn). 2018;22(3):141-150
pubmed: 30455585
J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2012 Dec;23(12):1629-37
pubmed: 23177109
Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2018 Mar;41(3):433-442
pubmed: 29086058
J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2013 Dec;24(12):1837-44
pubmed: 24094672
Radiology. 2016 May;279(2):630-40
pubmed: 26744927
Acad Radiol. 2014 Mar;21(3):393-9
pubmed: 24507426
Cancer. 1987 Sep 15;60(6):1194-203
pubmed: 2441837
Radiology. 2014 Dec;273(3):746-58
pubmed: 25028783
Eur J Radiol. 2015 Mar;84(3):424-430
pubmed: 25542065
Radiology. 2016 Jan;278(1):275-84
pubmed: 26131913
Semin Liver Dis. 2010 Feb;30(1):52-60
pubmed: 20175033
Eur Radiol. 2015 Jul;25(7):1993-2003
pubmed: 25636420
Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2015 Dec;38(6):1548-56
pubmed: 26001366
J Hepatol. 2018 Jul;69(1):182-236
pubmed: 29628281
J Gastroenterol. 2012 Mar;47(3):343-6
pubmed: 22183859
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2000 Feb 2;92(3):205-16
pubmed: 10655437
J Hepatol. 2001 Sep;35(3):421-30
pubmed: 11592607
Radiology. 2015 Feb;274(2):320-34
pubmed: 25625741
Cancer Imaging. 2016 Oct 3;16(1):32
pubmed: 27716376
Radiology. 2015 May;275(2):438-47
pubmed: 25531387