Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2016-11
Prognostic Importance of the Presence of Early Metabolic Response and Absence of Extrahepatic Metastasis After Selective Internal Radiation Therapy in Colorectal Cancer Liver Metastasis
In this study, the authors aimed to identify prognostic factors after selective internal radiation therapy (SIRT) for colorectal cancer (CRC) liver metastasis.
Methods:
Forty-nine (28 male, 21 female; mean age: 64.6 ± 10.8) patients who received SIRT for CRC liver metastasis were studied. Effects of number (<5 vs. ≥5), maximum dimension, and standardized uptake value (SUV) of liver metastases, liver tumor load (<25% vs. 26%–50% vs. 51%–75%), presence of extrahepatic disease, and metabolic early response on overall survival were analyzed.
Results:
Mean follow-up time was 44.1 ± 27.5 months. Overall survival time was calculated as 10.03 ± 1.61 (95% CI; 6.86–13.20) months. SUV (0.004) of liver metastases, early metabolic response (p = 0.015), and presence of extrahepatic metastasis (p = 0.001) were identified as significant factors influencing overall survival. The hazard ratio was 1:2.3 for the presence of extrahepatic metastasis and 1:2.7 for the absence of early metabolic response.
Conclusion:
These findings suggest that patients with CRC liver metastasis who have lower SUV at presentation and early metabolic response have better outcomes after SIRT.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
NordlingerB, GuiguetM, VaillantJC, et al.Surgical resection of colorectal carcinoma metastases to the liver. A prognostic scoring system to improve case selection, based on 1568 patients. Association Française de Chirurgie. Cancer, 1996; 77:1254.
2.
ZhaoB, JamesLP, MoskowitzCS, et al.Evaluating variability in tumor measurements from same-day repeat CT scans of patients with non-small cell lung cancer. Radiology, 2009; 252:263.
3.
MillerFH, KeppkeAL, ReddyD, et al.Response of liver metastases after treatment with yttrium-90 microspheres: Role of size, necrosis, and PET. AJR Am J Roentgenol, 2007; 188:776.
4.
JakobsTF, HoffmannRT, DehmK, et al.Hepatic yttrium-90 radioembolization of chemotherapy-refractory colorectal cancer liver metastases. J Vasc Interv Radiol, 2008; 19:1187.
5.
CosimelliM, GolfieriR, CagolPP, et al.Italian Society of Locoregional Therapies in Oncology (SITILO). Multi-centre phase II clinical trial of yttrium-90 resin microspheres alone in unresectable, chemotherapy refractory colorectal liver metastases. Br J Cancer, 2010; 103:324.
6.
LewandowskiRJ, ThurstonKG, GoinJE, et al.90Y microsphere (TheraSphere) treatment for unresectable colorectal cancer metastases of the liver: Response to treatment at targeted doses of 135–150 Gy as measured by [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography and computed tomographic imaging. J Vasc Interv Radiol, 2005; 16:1641.
7.
GrayB, Van HazelG, HopeM, et al.Randomised trial of SIR-Spheres plus chemotherapy vs. chemotherapy alone for treating patients with liver metastases from primary large bowel cancer. Ann Oncol, 2001; 12:1711.
8.
DammR, SeidenstickerR, UlrichG, et al.Y90 Radioembolization in chemo-refractory metastastic, liver dominant colorectal cancer patients: Outcome assessment applying a predictive scoring system. BMC Cancer, 2016; 16:509.
9.
HongK, McBrideJD, GeorgiadesCS, et al.Salvage therapy for liver-dominant colorectal metastatic adenocarcinoma: Comparison between transcatheter arterial chemoembolization versus yttrium-90 radioembolization. J Vasc Interv Radiol, 2009; 20:360.
10.
ZhuX, SobhaniF, XuC, et al.Quantitative volumetric functional MR imaging: An imaging biomarker of early treatment response in hypo-vascular liver metastasis patients after yttrium-90 transarterial radioembolization. Abdom Radiol (NY), 2016; 41:1495.
11.
KeppkeAL, SalemR, ReddyD, et al.Imaging of hepatocellular carcinoma after treatment with yttrium-90 microspheres. AJR Am J Roentgenol, 2007; 188:768.
12.
AtassiB, BangashAK, BahraniA, et al.Multimodality imaging following 90Y radioembolization: A comprehensive review and pictorial essay. Radiographics, 2008; 28:81.
13.
ZerizerI, Al-NahhasA, ToweyD, et al.The role of early 18F-FDG PET/CT in prediction of progression-free survival after 90Y radioembolization: Comparison with RECIST and tumour density criteria. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging, 2012; 39:1391.
14.
QuanD, GallingerS, NhanC, et al.Surgical Oncology Program at Cancer Care Ontario. The role of liver resection for colorectal cancer metastases in an era of multimodality treatment: A systematic review. Surgery, 2012; 151:860.
15.
GrotheyA, HedrickEE, MassRD, et al.Response-independent survival benefit in metastatic colorectal cancer: A comparative analysis of N9741 and AVF2107. J Clin Oncol, 2008; 26:183.
16.
BuyseM, ThirionP, CarlsonRW, et al.Relation between tumour response to first-line chemotherapy and survival in advanced colorectal cancer: A meta-analysis. Meta-Analysis Group in Cancer. Lancet, 2000; 356:373.
17.
HendliszA, Van den EyndeM, PeetersM, et al.Phase III trial comparing protracted intravenous fluorouracil infusion alone or with yttrium-90 resin microspheres radioembolization for liver-limited metastatic colorectal cancer refractory to standard chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol, 2010; 28:3687.
18.
LauWY, KennedyAS, KimYH, et al.Patient selection and activity planning guide for selective internal radiotherapy with yttrium-90 resin microspheres. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys, 2012; 82:401.
19.
MulcahyMF, LewandowskiRJ, IbrahimSM, et al.Radioembolization of colorectal hepatic metastases using yttrium-90 microspheres. Cancer, 2009; 115:1849.
20.
GulecSA, SutharRR, BarotTC, et al.The prognostic value of functional tumor volume and total lesion glycolysis in patients with colorectal cancer liver metastases undergoing 90Y selective internal radiation therapy plus chemotherapy. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging, 2011; 38:1289.
21.
SatoKT, LewandowskiRJ, MulcahyMF, et al.Unresectable chemorefractory liver metastases: Radioembolization with 90Y microspheres—Safety, efficacy, and survival. Radiology, 2008; 247:507.
22.
TherasseP, ArbuckSG, EisenhauerEA, 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; 92:205.
23.
TochettoSM, TöreHG, ChalianH, et al.Colorectal liver metastasis after 90Y radioembolization therapy: Pilot study of change in MDCT attenuation as a surrogate marker for future FDG PET response. AJR Am J Roentgenol, 2012; 198:1093.
24.
GroheuxD, MankoffD, EspiéM, et al.18F-FDG PET/CT in the early prediction of pathological response in aggressive subtypes of breast cancer: Review of the literature and recommendations for use in clinical trials. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging, 2016; 43:983.
25.
NishimuraG, YabukiK, HataM, et al.Imaging strategy for response evaluation to chemoradiotherapy of the nodal disease in patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Int J Clin Oncol, 2016; 21:658.
26.
LarsonSM, SchwartzLH. 18F-FDG PET as a candidate for “qualified biomarker”: Functional assessment of treatment response in oncology. J Nucl Med, 2006; 47:901.
27.
WeberWA. Use of PET for monitoring cancer therapy and for predicting outcome. J Nucl Med, 2005; 46:983.
28.
AdamsHJ, KweeTC. 18F-FDG-PET is not a useful tool for end-of-treatment response evaluation in peripheral T-cell lymphomas. Nucl Med Commun, 2016; 37:217.
