Prediction of Histopathologic Growth Patterns of Colorectal Liver Metastases with a Noninvasive Imaging Method

  • Jin Cheng
  • Jingwei Wei
  • Tong Tong
  • Weiqi Sheng
  • Yinli Zhang
  • Yuqi Han
  • Dongsheng Gu
  • Nan Hong
  • Yingjiang Ye
  • Jie TianEmail author
  • Yi WangEmail author
Hepatobiliary Tumors



To predict histopathologic growth patterns (HGPs) in colorectal liver metastases (CRLMs) with a noninvasive radiomics model.


Patients with chemotherapy-naive CRLMs who underwent abdominal contrast-enhanced multidetector CT (MDCT) followed by partial hepatectomy between January 2007 and January 2019 from two institutions were included in this retrospective study. Hematoxylin- and eosin-stained histopathologic sections of CRLMs were reviewed, with HGPs defined according to international consensus. Lesions were divided into training and validation datasets based on patients’ sources. Radiomic features were extracted from pre- and post-contrast (arterial and portal venous) phase MDCT images, with review focusing on the segmented tumor–liver interface zones of CRLMs. Minimum redundancy maximum relevance and decision tree methods were used for radiomics modeling. Multivariable logistic regression analyses and ROC curves were used to assess the predictive performance of these models in predicting HGP types.


A total of 126 CRLMs with histopathologic-demonstrated desmoplastic (n = 68) or replacement (n = 58) HGPs were assessed. The radiomics signature consisted of 20 features of each phase selected. The 3 phases fused radiomics signature demonstrated the best predictive performance in distinguishing between replacement and desmoplastic HGPs (AUCs of 0.926 and 0.939 in the training and external validation cohorts, respectively). The clinical-radiomics combined model showed good discrimination (C-indices of 0.941 and 0.833 in the training and external validation cohorts, respectively).


A radiomics model derived from MDCT images may effectively predict the HGP of CRLMs, thus providing a basis for prognostic stratification and therapeutic decision-making.



This work was supported by Natural Science Foundation of Beijing under Grant Nos. 7172226; Ministry of Science and Technology of China under Grant No. 2017YFA0205200; National Natural Science Foundation of China under Grant Nos. 81227901 and 81527805; Chinese Academy of Sciences under Grant Nos. GJJSTD20170004 and QYZDJ-SSW-JSC005; Beijing Municipal Science & Technology Commission under Grant Nos. Z161100002616022 and Z171100000117023; and the Key International Cooperation Projects of the Chinese Academy of Sciences under Grant No. 173211KYSB20160053.


The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

10434_2019_7910_MOESM1_ESM.docx (15.3 mb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 15630 kb)


  1. 1.
    Eefsen RL, Vermeulen PB, Christensen IJ, et al. Growth pattern of colorectal liver metastasis as a marker of recurrence risk. Clin Exp Metastasis. 2015;32(4):369–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Khatri VP, Chee KG, Petrelli NJ. Modern multimodality approach to hepatic colorectal metastases: solutions and controversies. Surg Oncol. 2007;16(1):71–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hurwitz H, Fehrenbacher L, Novotny W, et al. Bevacizumab plus irinotecan, fluorouracil, and leucovorin for metastatic colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med. 2004;350(23):2335–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines®) Colon Cancer Version 3.2018. 2018;
  5. 5.
    Vermeulen PB, Colpaert C, Salgado R, et al. Liver metastases from colorectal adenocarcinomas grow in three patterns with different angiogenesis and desmoplasia. J Pathol. 2001;195(3):336–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Van den Eynden GG, Bird NC, Majeed AW, Van Laere S, Dirix LY, Vermeulen PB. The histological growth pattern of colorectal cancer liver metastases has prognostic value. Clin Exp Metastasis. 2012;29(6):541–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Eefsen RL, Van den Eynden GG, Hoyer-Hansen G, et al. Histopathological growth pattern, proteolysis and angiogenesis in chemonaive patients resected for multiple colorectal liver metastases. J Oncol. 2012;2012:907971.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Paku S, Kopper L, Nagy P. Development of the vasculature in “pushing-type” liver metastases of an experimental colorectal cancer. Int J Cancer. Jul 20 2005;115(6):893–902.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Paku S, Lapis K. Morphological aspects of angiogenesis in experimental liver metastases. Am J Pathol. 1993;143(3):926–36.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Frentzas S, Simoneau E, Bridgeman VL, et al. Vessel co-option mediates resistance to anti-angiogenic therapy in liver metastases. Nat Med. 2016;22(11):1294–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Galjart B, Nierop PMH, van der Stok EP, et al. Angiogenic desmoplastic histopathological growth pattern as a prognostic marker of good outcome in patients with colorectal liver metastases. Angiogenesis. 2019;22(2):355–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lazaris A, Amri A, Petrillo SK, et al. Vascularization of colorectal carcinoma liver metastasis: insight into stratification of patients for anti-angiogenic therapies. J Pathol Clin Res. 2018;4(3):184–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    van Dam PJ, van der Stok EP, Teuwen LA, et al. International consensus guidelines for scoring the histopathological growth patterns of liver metastasis. Br J Cancer. 2017;117(10):1427–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lambin P, Rios-Velazquez E, Leijenaar R, et al. Radiomics: extracting more information from medical images using advanced feature analysis. Eur J Cancer. 2012;48(4):441–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sun R, Limkin EJ, Vakalopoulou M, et al. A radiomics approach to assess tumour-infiltrating CD8 cells and response to anti-PD-1 or anti-PD-L1 immunotherapy: an imaging biomarker, retrospective multicohort study. Lancet Oncol. 2018;19(9):1180–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ganeshan B, Abaleke S, Young RC, Chatwin CR, Miles KA. Texture analysis of non-small cell lung cancer on unenhanced computed tomography: initial evidence for a relationship with tumour glucose metabolism and stage. Cancer Imaging. 2010;10:137–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Liu Z, Zhang XY, Shi YJ, et al. Radiomics analysis for evaluation of pathological complete response to neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy in locally advanced rectal cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2017;23(23): 7253–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Huang YQ, Liang CH, He L, et al. Development and validation of a radiomics nomogram for preoperative prediction of lymph node metastasis in colorectal cancer. Sci Found China. 2016;34(4):2157–64.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Yang L, Dong D, Fang M, et al. Can CT-based radiomics signature predict KRAS/NRAS/BRAF mutations in colorectal cancer? Eur Radiol. 2018:1–10.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Van den Eynden GG, Majeed AW, Illemann M, et al. The multifaceted role of the microenvironment in liver metastasis: biology and clinical implications. Cancer Res. 2013;73(7):2031–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Chun YS, Vauthey JN, Boonsirikamchai P, et al. Association of computed tomography morphologic criteria with pathologic response and survival in patients treated with bevacizumab for colorectal liver metastases. JAMA. 2009;302(21):2338–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Tirumani SH, Jagannathan JP, Braschi-Amirfarzan M, et al. Value of hepatocellular phase imaging after intravenous gadoxetate disodium for assessing hepatic metastases from gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors: comparison with other MRI pulse sequences and with extracellular agent. Abdom Radiol (NY). Feb 22 2018.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Danet IM, Semelka RC, Leonardou P, et al. Spectrum of MRI appearances of untreated metastases of the liver. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2003;181(3):809–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Inaba Y, Arai Y, Takeuchi Y, et al. [Enhancement pattern of hepatic metastases from colorectal cancer on CT arteriography]. Nihon Igaku Hoshasen Gakkai Zasshi. 1997;57(8):483–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lunevicius R, Nakanishi H, Ito S, et al. Clinicopathological significance of fibrotic capsule formation around liver metastasis from colorectal cancer. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. 2001;127(3):193–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Sun H, Chen Y, Huang Q, et al. Psychoradiologic utility of MR imaging for diagnosis of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: a radiomics analysis. Radiology. 2017;287(Suppl 11):170226.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Prasanna P, Patel J, Partovi S, Madabhushi A, Tiwari P. Radiomic features from the peritumoral brain parenchyma on treatment-naïve multi-parametric MR imaging predict long versus short-term survival in glioblastoma multiforme: preliminary findings. Eur Radiol. 2016;27(10):1–10.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Rios VE, Parmar C, Liu Y, et al. Somatic mutations drive distinct imaging phenotypes in lung cancer. Cancer Res. 2017;77(14):3922–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Kramer AA, Zimmerman JE. Assessing the calibration of mortality benchmarks in critical care: the Hosmer-Lemeshow test revisited. Crit Care Med. 2007;35(9):2052–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Semelka RC, Hussain SM, Marcos HB, Woosley JT. Perilesional enhancement of hepatic metastases: correlation between MR imaging and histopathologic findings-initial observations. Radiology. 2000;215(1):89–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Thibault G, Angulo J, Meyer F. Advanced statistical matrices for texture characterization: application to cell classification. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 2014;61(3):630–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Diehn M, Nardini C, Wang DS, et al. Identification of noninvasive imaging surrogates for brain tumor gene-expression modules. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2008;105(13):5213–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Hayano K, Tian F, Kambadakone AR, et al. Texture analysis of non-contrast-enhanced computed tomography for assessing angiogenesis and survival of soft tissue sarcoma. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2015;39(4):607–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of Surgical Oncology 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jin Cheng
    • 1
  • Jingwei Wei
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
  • Tong Tong
    • 5
  • Weiqi Sheng
    • 6
  • Yinli Zhang
    • 7
  • Yuqi Han
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
  • Dongsheng Gu
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
  • Nan Hong
    • 1
  • Yingjiang Ye
    • 8
  • Jie Tian
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 9
    • 10
    Email author
  • Yi Wang
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of RadiologyPeking University People’s HospitalBeijingChina
  2. 2.Key Laboratory of Molecular ImagingInstitute of Automation, Chinese Academy of SciencesBeijingChina
  3. 3.Beijing Key Laboratory of Molecular ImagingBeijingChina
  4. 4.University of Chinese Academy of SciencesBeijingChina
  5. 5.Department of Radiology, Department of Oncology, Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center, Shanghai Medical CollegeFudan UniversityShanghaiChina
  6. 6.Department of Pathology, Department of Oncology, Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center, Shanghai Medical CollegeFudan UniversityShanghaiChina
  7. 7.Department of PathologyPeking University People’s HospitalBeijingChina
  8. 8.Department of Gastrointestinal SurgeryPeking University People’ HospitalBeijingChina
  9. 9.Beijing Advanced Innovation Center for Big Data-Based Precision Medicine, School of MedicineBeihang UniversityBeijingChina
  10. 10.Engineering Research Center of Molecular and Neuro Imaging of Ministry of Education, School of Life Science and TechnologyXidian UniversityXi’anChina

Personalised recommendations