4.7 Article

Prognostic value of baseline volumetric multiparametric MR imaging in neuroendocrine liver metastases treated with transarterial chemoembolization

Journal

EUROPEAN RADIOLOGY
Volume 29, Issue 10, Pages 5160-5171

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00330-019-06100-3

Keywords

Chemoembolization; Liver neoplasms; Magnetic resonance imaging; Neuroendocrine tumors; Prognosis

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives To determine whether baseline multiparametric MR imaging can predict overall survival (OS) and hepatic progression-free survival (HPFS) in patients with neuroendocrine liver metastases (NELMs) treated with transarterial chemoembolization (TACE). Methods This retrospective study included 84 NELMs patients treated with TACE. Tumor volume and volumetric measurements of arterial enhancement (AE), venous enhancement (VE), and apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) were performed on baseline MR imaging. A maximum of one, two, and five index lesions were selected in each patient. OS was the primary endpoint and HPFS was the secondary endpoint. Prognostic values of volumetric multiparametric MR parameters for predicting OS and HPFS considering a maximum of one, two, and five index lesions were assessed. Results Prognostic values of volumetric multiparametric MR parameters for predicting OS and HPFS were similar regardless of the maximum number of index lesions. Multivariate survival analysis showed that baseline dominant tumor volume >= 73 cm(3), volumetric mean AE >= 45%, and mean VE >= 73% were independent prognostic factors for OS (HR 2.73; 95% CI 1.45, 5.15; HR 0.32; 95% CI 0.17, 0.63; HR 0.35; 95% CI 0.17, 0.72, respectively) and HPFS (HR 2.30, 95% CI 1.38, 3.84; HR 0.46, 95% CI 0.25, 0.84; HR 0.36, 95% CI 0.19, 0.57, respectively). OS and HPFS were similar in patients with low and high volumetric mean ADC. Conclusion Volumetric enhancement values and tumor volume of the dominant lesion on baseline MR imaging may act as prognostic factors for OS and HPFS in NELMs patients treated with TACE.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available