The diagnostic efficiency of the perfusion-related parameters in assessing the vascular disrupting agent (CA4P) response in a rabbit VX2 liver tumor model
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online September, 2022
The diagnostic efficiency of the perfusion-related parameters in assessing the vascular disrupting agent (CA4P) response in a rabbit VX2 liver tumor model
There are inconsistencies when concomitantly using dynamic contrast enhancement (DCE) and intravoxel incoherent motion (IVIM) to evaluate diagnostic efficiency.
Purpose
To evaluate the diagnostic efficiency of perfusion-related parameters in assessing the effect of Combretastatin-A4-phosphate (CA4P) in a rabbit VX2 liver tumor model using DCE and IVIM.
Material and Methods
Twenty rabbits implanted with VX2 tumors were included in the study. The perfusion-parameters of DCE (Ktrans and iAUC60) and IVIM (f and D*) were measured at baseline and 4 h after administration of CA4P. Subsequently, the rabbits were euthanized. Pre- and post-treatment perfusion parameters were analyzed using paired t-test. Correlation between the various perfusion parameters and correlation of perfusion parameters with microvascular density (MVD) were assessed using Pearson correlation analysis. The diagnostic efficiency was evaluated using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis.
Results
All perfusion parameters (Ktrans, iAUC60, f and D*) showed significant decrease after 4 h of CA4P administration (all P < 0.001). Post-treatment perfusion parameters showed a moderate correlation with MVD (r = 0.663, r = 0.567, r = 0.685, r = 0.618, respectively; all P < 0.05). At baseline and after treatment, Ktrans values and iAUC60 showed correlation with f and D* (all P < 0.05). Concomitant use of perfusion parameters of DCE and IVIM showed the best diagnostic performance, which was slightly greater than that observed with individual application of DCE or IVIM (AUC = 0.915, 0.880, and 0.895, respectively).
Conclusion
Although concomitant application of DCE and IVIM can slightly improve the diagnostic value in assessing the effect of CA4P, the values were relatively small.
BruixJDaFLReigM.Insights into the success and failure of systemic therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol2019;
16:617–630.
2.
LippertJR.Vascular disrupting agents. Bioorg Med Chem2007;
15:605–615.
3.
GaronEBNeidhartJDGabrailNY, et al.
A randomized Phase II trial of the tumor vascular disrupting agent CA4P (fosbretabulin tromethamine) with carboplatin, paclitaxel, and bevacizumab in advanced nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer. Onco Targets Ther2016;
9:7275–7283.
4.
ZweifelMJaysonGCReedNS, et al.
Phase II trial of combretastatin A4 phosphate, carboplatin, and paclitaxel in patients with platinum-resistant ovarian cancer. Ann Oncol2011;
22:2036–2041.
5.
SosaJABalkissoonJLuSP, et al.
Thyroidectomy followed by fosbretabulin (CA4P) combination regimen appears to suggest improvement in patient survival in anaplastic thyroid cancer. Surgery2012;
152:1078–1087.
6.
LiuYDe KeyzerFWangY, et al.
The first study on therapeutic efficacies of a vascular disrupting agent CA4P among primary hepatocellular carcinomas with a full spectrum of differentiation and vascularity: Correlation of MRI‐microangiography‐histopathology in rats. Int J Cancer2018;
143:1817–1828.
7.
LiuYDe KeyzerFFengY, et al.
Intra-individual comparison of therapeutic responses to vascular disrupting agent CA4P between rodent primary and secondary liver cancers. World J Gastroenterol2018;
24:2710–2721.
8.
AbmaEDaminetSSmetsP, et al.
Combretastatin A4-phosphate and its potential in veterinary oncology: a review. Vet Comp Oncol2017;
15:184–193.
9.
HusseinRSTantawyWAbbasYA.MRI assessment of hepatocellular carcinoma after locoregional therapy. Insights Imaging2019;
10:8.
10.
Chen J, Qian T, Zhang H, et al. Combining dynamic contrast enhanced magnetic resonance imaging and microvessel density to assess the angiogenesis after PEI in a rabbit VX2 liver tumor model. Magn Reson Imaging 2016;34:177–182.
11.
Le BihanDBretonELallemandD, et al.
MR imaging of intravoxel incoherent motions: application to diffusion and perfusion in neurologic disorders. Radiology1986;
161:401–407.
12.
ShiCLiuDXiaoZ, et al.
Monitoring tumor response to antivascular therapy using non-contrast intravoxel incoherent motion diffusion-weighted MRI. Cancer Res2017;
77:3491–3501.
13.
ParkHSHanJKLeeJM, et al.
Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI using a macromolecular MR contrast agent (P792): evaluation of antivascular drug effect in a rabbit VX2 liver tumor model. Korean J Radiol2015;
16:1029–1037.
14.
JooILeeJMGrimmR, et al.
Monitoring vascular disrupting therapy in a rabbit liver tumor model: relationship between tumor perfusion parameters at IVIM diffusion-weighted MR imaging and those at dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging. Radiology2016;
278:104–113.
15.
BihanDLBretonELallemandD, et al.
Separation of diffusion and perfusion in intravoxel incoherent motion MR imaging. Radiology1988;
168:497–505.
16.
ToftsPSBrixGBuckleyDL, et al.
Estimating kinetic parameters from dynamic contrast-enhanced T(1)-weighted MRI of a diffusable tracer: standardized quantities and symbols. J Magn Reson Imaging1999;
10:223–232.
17.
NaitoSvon EschenbachACGiavazziR, et al.
Growth and metastasis of tumor cells isolated from a human renal cell carcinoma implanted into different organs of nude mice.Cancer Res1986;
46:4109–4115.
18.
WeidnerN.Current pathologic methods for measuring intratumoral microvessel density within breast carcinoma and other solid tumors. Breast Cancer Res Treat1995;
36:169–180.
19.
LiuYWangSZhaoX, et al.
Predicting clinical efficacy of vascular disrupting agents in rodent models of primary and secondary liver cancers: an overview with imaging-histopathology correlation. Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) 2020;
10:78.
20.
YaoNRenKJiangC, et al.
Combretastatin A4 phosphate treatment induces vasculogenic mimicry formation of W256 breast carcinoma tumor in vitro and in vivo. Tumour Biol2015;
36:8499–8510.
21.
O’ConnorJ PJacksonAParkerG J, et al.
Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI in clinical trials of antivascular therapies. Nat Rev Clin Oncol2012;
9:167–177.
22.
HectorsS JJacobsILokJ, et al.
Improved evaluation of antivascular cancer therapy using constrained tracer-kinetic modeling for multiagent dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI. Cancer Res2018;
78:1561–1570.
23.
CoolenBFCalcagnoCvan OoijP, et al.
Vessel wall characterization using quantitative MRI: what’s in a number?MAGMA2018;
31:201–222.
24.
WuYYanYGaoX, et al.
Gd-encapsulated carbonaceous dots for accurate characterization of tumor vessel permeability in magnetic resonance imaging. Nanomedicine2019;
21:102074.
25.
YamadaIAungWHimenoY, et al.
Diffusion coefficients in abdominal organs and hepatic lesions: evaluation with intravoxel incoherent motion echo-planar MR imaging. Radiology1999;
210:617–623.
26.
SongZChangYXieH, et al.
Decorated ultrathin bismuth selenide nanosheets as targeted theranostic agents for in vivo imaging guided cancer radiation therapy. NPG Asia Materials2017;
9:e439.
27.
GaoPLiuYShiC, et al. Performing IVIM-DWI using the multifunctional nanosystem for the evaluation of the antitumor microcirculation changes. MAGMA2020;33:517–526.
28.
ChandaranaHKangSKWongS, et al.
Diffusion-weighted intravoxel incoherent motion imaging of renal tumors with histopathologic correlation. Invest Radiol2012;
47:688–696.
29.
LaiVLeeVLamKO, et al.
Intravoxel incoherent motion MR imaging in nasopharyngeal carcinoma: comparison and correlation with dynamic contrast enhanced MR imaging. Oncotarget2017;
8:68472–68482.
30.
PatelJSigmundEERusinekH, et al.
Diagnosis of cirrhosis with intravoxel incoherent motion diffusion MRI and dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI alone and in combination: preliminary experience. J Magn Reson Imaging2010;
31:589–600.
31.
HeMSongYLiH, et al.
Histogram analysis comparison of monoexponential, advanced diffusion-weighted imaging, and dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI for differentiating borderline from malignant epithelial ovarian tumors. J Magn Reson Imaging2020;52:257–268.
32.
BarnesSLWhisenantJGLovelessME, et al.
Practical dynamic contrast enhanced MRI in small animal models of cancer: data acquisition, data analysis, and interpretation. Pharmaceutics2012;
4:442–478.
33.
BergaminoMBarlettaLCastellanL, et al.
Evaluation of IAUGC indices and two DCE-MRI pharmacokinetic parameters assessed by two different theoretical algorithms in patients with brain tumors. Clin Imaging2014;
38:808–814.
34.
Le BihanD.What can we see with IVIM MRI?Neuroimage2019;
187:56–67.
35.
WangLLLinJLiuK, et al.
Intravoxel incoherent motion diffusion-weighted MR imaging in differentiation of lung cancer from obstructive lung consolidation: comparison and correlation with pharmacokinetic analysis from dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging. Eur Radiol2014;
24:1914–1922.
36.
XuXQHuHSuGY, et al.
Differentiation between orbital malignant and benign tumors using intravoxel incoherent motion diffusion-weighted imaging: Correlation with dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging. Medicine (Baltimore) 2019;
98:e14897.
37.
ZhouSCWangYJAiT, et al.
Diagnosis of solitary pulmonary lesions with intravoxel incoherent motion diffusion-weighted MRI and semi-quantitative dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI. Clin Radiol2019;
74:407–409.
38.
LiXWuSLiD, et al.
Intravoxel incoherent motion combined with dynamic contrast-enhanced perfusion MRI of early cervical carcinoma: correlations between multimodal parameters and HIF-1alpha expression. J Magn Reson Imaging2019;
50:918–929.
