Top

Published in:

01-11-2019 | Metastasis | Gastrointestinal

Semi-quantitative visual assessment of hepatic tumor burden can reliably predict survival in neuroendocrine liver metastases treated with transarterial chemoembolization

Authors: Yan Luo, Sanaz Ameli, Ankur Pandey, Pegah Khoshpouri, Mounes Aliyari Ghasabeh, Pallavi Pandey, Zhen Li, Daoyu Hu, Ihab R. Kamel

Published in: European Radiology | Issue 11/2019

Abstract

Objectives

To evaluate the accuracy and reproducibility of semi-quantitative visual assessment of hepatic tumor burden (HTB) on MRI and to investigate its prognostic value in predicting overall survival (OS) in neuroendocrine liver metastases (NELMs) treated with transarterial chemoembolization (TACE).

Methods

Three independent readers blinded to the quantitative HTB measurement reviewed baseline MRI in 111 NELM patients treated with TACE. Readers visually assessed and semi-quantitatively categorized HTB using the European Neuroendocrine Tumor Society (ENETS) guidelines. Quantitative HTB measured by manual segmentation was used as the reference standard. Agreements between quantitative and semi-quantitative measurement of HTB, as well as intra- and inter-reader reproducibility, were evaluated using weighted kappa coefficient and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Survival analysis included the Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox regression. Harrell C-index was calculated to evaluate the prognostic value of semi-quantitative HTB for predicting OS.

Results

According to quantitative HTB, 41, 29, 25, and 16 patients were categorized into ≤ 10%, 11–25%, 26–50%, and > 50% groups, respectively. Agreements between quantitative and semi-quantitative measurement of HTB by each reader (weighted kappa, 0.82–0.96), intra-reader agreement (weighted kappa, 0.95), and inter-reader agreements (weighted kappa, 0.84–0.91; ICC, 0.98) were at least substantial to almost perfect. Semi-quantitative HTB was an independent prognostic factor in NELMs treated with TACE (multivariate Cox regression, p < 0.001), with prognostic value comparable to that of quantitative HTB (Harrell C-index, 0.735 for both semi-quantitative and quantitative HTB in multivariate regression).

Conclusion

Semi-quantitative visual assessment of HTB using MRI is accurate and reproducible and could reliably predict OS in NELMs treated with TACE.

Key Points

• Semi-quantitative visual assessment of HTB using MR imaging is considerably accurate, reproducible, and efficient.

• Visually assessed semi-quantitative HTB serves as an independent predictor of OS in NELMs treated with TACE.

Riihimaki M, Hemminki A, Sundquist K, Sundquist J, Hemminki K (2016) The epidemiology of metastases in neuroendocrine tumors. Int J Cancer 139:2679–2686CrossRef

Frilling A, Modlin IM, Kidd M et al (2014) Recommendations for management of patients with neuroendocrine liver metastases. Lancet Oncol 15:e8–e21CrossRef

Vogl TJ, Naguib NN, Zangos S et al (2009) Liver metastases of neuroendocrine carcinomas: interventional treatment via transarterial embolization, chemoembolization and thermal ablation. Eur J Radiol 72:517–528CrossRef

Kunz PL, Reidy-Lagunes D, Anthony LB et al (2013) Consensus guidelines for the management and treatment of neuroendocrine tumors. Pancreas 42:557–577CrossRef

Pavel M, O'Toole D, Costa F et al (2016) ENETS consensus guidelines update for the management of distant metastatic disease of intestinal, pancreatic, bronchial neuroendocrine neoplasms (NEN) and NEN of unknown primary site. Neuroendocrinology 103:172–185CrossRef

Kress O, Wagner HJ, Wied M et al (2003) Transarterial chemoembolization of advanced liver metastases of neuroendocrine tumors--a retrospective single-center analysis. Digestion 68:94–101CrossRef

Dhir M, Shrestha R, Steel JL et al (2017) Initial treatment of unresectable neuroendocrine tumor liver metastases with transarterial chemoembolization using streptozotocin: a 20-year experience. Ann Surg Oncol 24:450–459CrossRef

Chen JX, Rose S, White SB et al (2017) Embolotherapy for neuroendocrine tumor liver metastases: prognostic factors for hepatic progression-free survival and overall survival. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 40:69–80CrossRef

Kos-Kudla B, Blicharz-Dorniak J, Handkiewicz-Junak D et al (2013) Diagnostic and therapeutic guidelines for gastro-entero-pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms (recommended by the polish network of neuroendocrine tumours). Endokrynol Pol 64:418–443CrossRef

10.

Rinke A, Muller HH, Schade-Brittinger C et al (2009) Placebo-controlled, double-blind, prospective, randomized study on the effect of octreotide LAR in the control of tumor growth in patients with metastatic neuroendocrine midgut tumors: a report from the PROMID study group. J Clin Oncol 27:4656–4663CrossRef

11.

Mayo SC, de Jong MC, Bloomston M et al (2011) Surgery versus intra-arterial therapy for neuroendocrine liver metastasis: a multicenter international analysis. Ann Surg Oncol 18:3657–3665CrossRef

12.

Arnold R, Wilke A, Rinke A et al (2008) Plasma chromogranin A as marker for survival in patients with metastatic endocrine gastroenteropancreatic tumors. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 6:820–827CrossRef

13.

Hur S, Chung JW, Kim HC et al (2013) Survival outcomes and prognostic factors of transcatheter arterial chemoembolization for hepatic neuroendocrine metastases. J Vasc Interv Radiol 24:947–956 957CrossRef

14.

Hentic O, Couvelard A, Rebours V et al (2011) Ki-67 index, tumor differentiation, and extent of liver involvement are independent prognostic factors in patients with liver metastases of digestive endocrine carcinomas. Endocr Relat Cancer 18:51–59CrossRef

15.

Gupta S, Johnson MM, Murthy R et al (2005) Hepatic arterial embolization and chemoembolization for the treatment of patients with metastatic neuroendocrine tumors: variables affecting response rates and survival. Cancer 104:1590–1602CrossRef

16.

Sundin A, Arnold R, Baudin E et al (2017) ENETS consensus guidelines for the standards of care in neuroendocrine tumors: radiological, nuclear medicine & hybrid imaging. Neuroendocrinology 105:212–244CrossRef

17.

Pavel M, Baudin E, Couvelard A et al (2012) ENETS consensus guidelines for the management of patients with liver and other distant metastases from neuroendocrine neoplasms of foregut, midgut, hindgut, and unknown primary. Neuroendocrinology 95:157–176CrossRef

18.

Li Z, Bonekamp S, Halappa VG et al (2012) Islet cell liver metastases: assessment of volumetric early response with functional MR imaging after transarterial chemoembolization. Radiology 264:97–109CrossRef

19.

Hallgren KA (2012) Computing inter-rater reliability for observational data: an overview and tutorial. Tutor Quant Methods Psychol 8:23–34CrossRef

20.

Newson R (2010) Comparing the predictive powers of survival models using Harrell’s C or Somers’ D. Stata J 10:339–358CrossRef

21.

Zappa M, Hentic O, Vullierme MP et al (2017) Is visual radiological evaluation of liver tumour burden in patients with neuroendocrine tumours reproducible? Endocr Connect 6:33–38CrossRef

22.

Dromain C, de Baere T, Lumbroso J et al (2005) Detection of liver metastases from endocrine tumors: a prospective comparison of somatostatin receptor scintigraphy, computed tomography, and magnetic resonance imaging. J Clin Oncol 23:70–78CrossRef

23.

Elias D, Lefevre JH, Duvillard P et al (2010) Hepatic metastases from neuroendocrine tumors with a “thin slice” pathological examination: they are many more than you think. Ann Surg 251:307–310CrossRef

24.

D'Assignies G, Fina P, Bruno O et al (2013) High sensitivity of diffusion-weighted MR imaging for the detection of liver metastases from neuroendocrine tumors: comparison with T2-weighted and dynamic gadolinium-enhanced MR imaging. Radiology 268:390–399CrossRef

25.

Linguraru MG, Richbourg WJ, Liu J et al (2012) Tumor burden analysis on computed tomography by automated liver and tumor segmentation. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 31:1965–1976CrossRef

26.

Baâzaoui A, Barhoumi W, Ahmed A, Zagrouba E (2017) Semi-automated segmentation of single and multiple tumors in liver CT images using semi-automated segmentation of single and multiple tumors in liver CT images using entropy-based fuzzy region growing. Irbm 38:98–108CrossRef

27.

Hame Y, Pollari M (2012) Semi-automatic liver tumor segmentation with hidden Markov measure field model and non-parametric distribution estimation. Med Image Anal 16:140–149CrossRef

28.

Janson ET, Holmberg L, Stridsberg M et al (1997) Carcinoid tumors: analysis of prognostic factors and survival in 301 patients from a referral center. Ann Oncol 8:685–690CrossRef

29.

Turner GB, Johnston BT, McCance DR et al (2006) Circulating markers of prognosis and response to treatment in patients with midgut carcinoid tumours. Gut 55:1586–1591CrossRef

30.

Durante C, Boukheris H, Dromain C et al (2009) Prognostic factors influencing survival from metastatic (stage IV) gastroenteropancreatic well-differentiated endocrine carcinoma. Endocr Relat Cancer 16:585–597CrossRef

31.

Shaheen M, Hassanain M, Aljiffry M et al (2012) Predictors of response to radio-embolization (TheraSphere(R)) treatment of neuroendocrine liver metastasis. HPB (Oxford) 14:60–66CrossRef

32.

Rinke A, Wittenberg M, Schade-Brittinger C et al (2017) Placebo-controlled, double-blind, prospective, randomized study on the effect of octreotide LAR in the control of tumor growth in patients with metastatic neuroendocrine midgut tumors (PROMID): results of long-term survival. Neuroendocrinology 104:26–32CrossRef

33.

Saxena A, Chua TC, Bester L, Kokandi A, Morris DL (2010) Factors predicting response and survival after yttrium-90 radioembolization of unresectable neuroendocrine tumor liver metastases: a critical appraisal of 48 cases. Ann Surg 251:910–916CrossRef

34.

Fan KY, Wild AT, Halappa VG et al (2016) Neuroendocrine tumor liver metastases treated with yttrium-90 radioembolization. Contemp Clin Trials 50:143–149CrossRef

35.

Altman DG, Royston P (2006) The cost of dichotomising continuous variables. BMJ 332:1080CrossRef

Title: Semi-quantitative visual assessment of hepatic tumor burden can reliably predict survival in neuroendocrine liver metastases treated with transarterial chemoembolization
Authors: Yan Luo
Sanaz Ameli
Ankur Pandey
Pegah Khoshpouri
Mounes Aliyari Ghasabeh
Pallavi Pandey
Zhen Li
Daoyu Hu
Ihab R. Kamel
Publication date: 01-11-2019
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Keywords: Metastasis
Neuroendocrine Tumor
Published in: European Radiology / Issue 11/2019
Print ISSN: 0938-7994
Electronic ISSN: 1432-1084
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-019-06246-0

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Semi-quantitative visual assessment of hepatic tumor burden can reliably predict survival in neuroendocrine liver metastases treated with transarterial chemoembolization

Abstract

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Key Points

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Key Points

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 11/2019

Sparse sampling computed tomography (SpSCT) for detection of pulmonary embolism: a feasibility study

Carotid plaque composition by CT angiography in asymptomatic subjects: a head-to-head comparison to ultrasound

Can peritumoral radiomics increase the efficiency of the prediction for lymph node metastasis in clinical stage T1 lung adenocarcinoma on CT?

Prognostic value of ADC quantification for clinical outcome in uterine cervical cancer treated with concurrent chemoradiotherapy

Correlation between quantitative assessment of contrast enhancement in contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM) and histopathology—preliminary results

Variability in the decision-making process of acute ischemic stroke in difficult clinical and radiological constellations: analysis based on a cross-sectional interview-administered stroke questionnaire