Advanced solid tumors treated with cediranib: comparison of dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging and CT as markers of vascular activity.

PURPOSE To assess baseline reproducibility and compare performance of dynamic contrast material-enhanced (DCE) magnetic resonance (MR) imaging versus DCE computed tomographic (CT) measures of early vascular response in the same patients treated with cediranib (30 or 45 mg daily). MATERIALS AND METHODS After institutional review board approval, written informed consent was obtained from 29 patients with advanced solid tumors who had lesions 3 cm or larger and in whom simultaneous imaging of an adjacent artery was possible. Two baseline DCE MR acquisitions and two baseline DCE CT acquisitions 7 days or fewer apart (within 14 days of starting treatment) and two posttreatment acquisitions with each modality at day 7 and 28 (±3 days) were obtained. Nonmodeled and modeled parameters were derived (measured arterial input function [AIF] for CT, population-based AIF for MR imaging; temporal sampling rate of 0.5 second for CT, 3-6 seconds for MR imaging). Baseline variability was assessed by using intra- and intersubject analysis of variance and Bland-Altman analysis; a paired t test assessed change from baseline to after treatment. RESULTS The most reproducible parameters were DCE MR imaging enhancement fraction (baseline intrapatient coefficient of variation [CV]=8.6%), volume transfer constant (CV=13.9%), and integrated area under the contrast agent uptake curve at 60 seconds (CV=15.5%) and DCE CT positive enhancement integral (CV=16.0%). Blood plasma volume was highly variable and the only parameter with CV greater than 30%. Average reductions (percentage change) from baseline were consistently observed for all DCE MR imaging and DCE CT parameters at day 7 and 28 for both starting-dose groups (45 and 30 mg), except for DCE CT mean transit time. Percentage change from baseline for parameters reflecting blood flow and permeability were comparable, and reductions from baseline at day 7 were maintained at day 28. CONCLUSION DCE MR imaging and DCE CT can depict vascular response to antiangiogenic agents with response evident at day 7. Improved reproducibility with MR imaging favors its use in trials with small patient numbers.

[1]  Wei Wei,et al.  Reproducibility of perfusion parameters obtained from perfusion CT in lung tumors. , 2011, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[2]  G J M Parker,et al.  Comparison of dynamic contrast‐enhanced MRI and dynamic contrast‐enhanced CT biomarkers in bladder cancer , 2011, Magnetic resonance in medicine.

[3]  S. Sourbron Technical aspects of MR perfusion. , 2010, European journal of radiology.

[4]  Thomas Benner,et al.  Phase II study of cediranib, an oral pan-vascular endothelial growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor, in patients with recurrent glioblastoma. , 2010, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[5]  Piotr Kozlowski,et al.  Comparison between population average and experimentally measured arterial input function in predicting biopsy results in prostate cancer. , 2010, Academic radiology.

[6]  C. Ng,et al.  Reproducibility of perfusion parameters in dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI of lung and liver tumors: effect on estimates of patient sample size in clinical trials and on individual patient responses. , 2010, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[7]  D L Buckley,et al.  Enhancing fraction measured using dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI predicts disease-free survival in patients with carcinoma of the cervix , 2009, British Journal of Cancer.

[8]  P. Wen,et al.  A "vascular normalization index" as potential mechanistic biomarker to predict survival after a single dose of cediranib in recurrent glioblastoma patients. , 2009, Cancer research.

[9]  David Atkinson,et al.  Optimizing functional parameter accuracy for breath-hold DCE-MRI of liver tumours , 2009, Physics in medicine and biology.

[10]  Rajesh Odedra,et al.  Examining the acute effects of cediranib (RECENTIN, AZD2171) treatment in tumor models: a dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI study using gadopentate. , 2009, Magnetic resonance imaging.

[11]  T. Vogl,et al.  Functional CT of squamous cell carcinoma in the head and neck: repeatability of tumor and muscle quantitative measurements, inter- and intra-observer agreement , 2008, European Radiology.

[12]  J. Waterton,et al.  Effects of AZD2171 and vandetanib (ZD6474, Zactima) on haemodynamic variables in an SW620 human colon tumour model: an investigation using dynamic contrast‐enhanced MRI and the rapid clearance blood pool contrast agent, P792 (gadomelitol) , 2008, NMR in biomedicine.

[13]  Angela Caunce,et al.  Tracer kinetic model–driven registration for dynamic contrast‐enhanced MRI time‐series data , 2007, Magnetic resonance in medicine.

[14]  J. Drevs,et al.  Phase I clinical study of AZD2171, an oral vascular endothelial growth factor signaling inhibitor, in patients with advanced solid tumors. , 2007, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[15]  Geoff J M Parker,et al.  Imaging Tumor Vascular Heterogeneity and Angiogenesis using Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging , 2007, Clinical Cancer Research.

[16]  H. Cheng Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI in oncology drug development. , 2007, Current clinical pharmacology.

[17]  David Atkinson,et al.  Using Registration to Quantify the Consistency of Whole Liver Position during Patient Breath-hold in Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced MRI , 2007 .

[18]  Wolfhard Semmler,et al.  Dual‐bolus approach to quantitative measurement of pulmonary perfusion by contrast‐enhanced MRI , 2006, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[19]  A. Jackson,et al.  Experimentally‐derived functional form for a population‐averaged high‐temporal‐resolution arterial input function for dynamic contrast‐enhanced MRI , 2006, Magnetic resonance in medicine.

[20]  Geoff J M Parker,et al.  Comparison of errors associated with single‐ and multi‐bolus injection protocols in low‐temporal‐resolution dynamic contrast‐enhanced tracer kinetic analysis , 2006, Magnetic resonance in medicine.

[21]  E. Eisenhauer,et al.  RECIST revisited: a review of validation studies on tumour assessment. , 2006, European journal of cancer.

[22]  Ernst Klotz,et al.  Lung cancer perfusion at multi-detector row CT: reproducibility of whole tumor quantitative measurements. , 2006, Radiology.

[23]  John Suckling,et al.  Informatics in Radiology (infoRAD): Magnetic Resonance Imaging Workbench: analysis and visualization of dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging data. , 2006, Radiographics : a review publication of the Radiological Society of North America, Inc.

[24]  S. Barry,et al.  AZD2171: a highly potent, orally bioavailable, vascular endothelial growth factor receptor-2 tyrosine kinase inhibitor for the treatment of cancer. , 2005, Cancer research.

[25]  M. Knopp,et al.  The assessment of antiangiogenic and antivascular therapies in early-stage clinical trials using magnetic resonance imaging: issues and recommendations , 2005, British Journal of Cancer.

[26]  M. Beer,et al.  Prebolus quantitative MR heart perfusion imaging , 2004, Magnetic resonance in medicine.

[27]  J. Heiserman,et al.  Assessment of the reproducibility of postprocessing dynamic CT perfusion data. , 2004, AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology.

[28]  K. Miles,et al.  Perfusion CT for the assessment of tumour vascularity: which protocol? , 2003, The British journal of radiology.

[29]  A. Padhani,et al.  Reproducibility of dynamic contrast‐enhanced MRI in human muscle and tumours: comparison of quantitative and semi‐quantitative analysis , 2002, NMR in biomedicine.

[30]  A. Padhani,et al.  Reproducibility of quantitative dynamic MRI of normal human tissues , 2002, NMR in biomedicine.

[31]  S. O. Oyadiji,et al.  Application of coefficient of variation in reliability-based mechanical design and manufacture , 2001 .

[32]  Daniel Rueckert,et al.  Nonrigid registration using free-form deformations: application to breast MR images , 1999, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[33]  D. Altman,et al.  Measuring agreement in method comparison studies , 1999, Statistical methods in medical research.

[34]  Ting-Yim Lee,et al.  An Adiabatic Approximation to the Tissue Homogeneity Model for Water Exchange in the Brain: I. Theoretical Derivation , 1998, Journal of cerebral blood flow and metabolism : official journal of the International Society of Cerebral Blood Flow and Metabolism.

[35]  B K Rutt,et al.  Temporal sampling requirements for the tracer kinetics modeling of breast disease. , 1998, Magnetic resonance imaging.

[36]  P. Burton,et al.  Extending the simple linear regression model to account for correlated responses: an introduction to generalized estimating equations and multi-level mixed modelling. , 1998, Statistics in medicine.

[37]  N J Pelc,et al.  Rapid calculation of T1 using variable flip angle gradient refocused imaging. , 1987, Magnetic resonance imaging.

[38]  D. Altman,et al.  STATISTICAL METHODS FOR ASSESSING AGREEMENT BETWEEN TWO METHODS OF CLINICAL MEASUREMENT , 1986, The Lancet.