Use of Tracer Kinetic Model-Driven Biomarkers for Monitoring Antiangiogenic Therapy of Hepatocellular Carcinoma in First-Pass Perfusion CT

  • Sang Ho Lee
  • Koichi Hayano
  • Dushyant Sahani
  • Hiroyuki Yoshida
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8198)


Development of vascularly targeted anti-cancer therapies has led to an interest in determining the in vivo effectiveness of anti-tumor agents in patients. As the antiangiogenic agents may have significant effects without causing tumor shrinkage, their microcirculatory characteristics have the potential to be response biomarkers. Perfusion CT (PCT) studies can quantify the microcirculatory status of liver tumors, and can be used for assessing the effectiveness of antiangiogenic therapy. Our purpose in this study was to compare five different tracer kinetic models for the analysis of first-pass hepatic PCT data, to investigate whether kinetic parameters differ in significance among different kinetic models, and to select the best single prognostic biomarker with respect to the prediction of 6-month progression-free survival (PFS) of patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). The first-pass PCT was performed at baseline and on days 10 to 12 after initiation of antiangiogenic treatment. The PCT data were analyzed retrospectively by the Tofts-Kety (TK), extended TK (ETK), two-compartment exchange (2CX), adiabatic approximation to tissue homogeneity (AATH), and distributed parameter (DP) models. Kinetic parameters consisted of blood flow (BF), blood volume (BV), mean transit time (MTT), and permeability-surface area product (PS), mean values of which within HCC were compared between baseline and post-treatment by the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Baseline mean kinetic parameters within HCC and relative percent changes (%changes) in the mean and standard deviation (SD) from baseline to post-treatment were also compared in terms of PFS discrimination by use of Spearman correlation analysis. After treatment, the changes in the kinetic parameter values were significantly different among models. The results suggested that the %change of SD for BV is an effective prognosis biomarker, potentially reflecting that treatment-induced change of vascular heterogeneity plays a role in the assessment of the HCC response. Based on the predictive ranking of a single biomarker, the AATH model was the best predictor of 6-month PFS in the first-pass PCT analysis.


Hepatocellular carcinoma antiangiogenic treatment image biomarker perfusion CT 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Jemal, A., Siegel, R., Xu, J., Ward, E.: Cancer Statistics, 2010. CA Cancer J. Clin. 60, 277–300 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kew, M.C., Dos Santos, H.A., Sherlock, S.: Diagnosis of Primary Cancer of the Liver. Br. Med. J. 4, 408–411 (1971)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    A New Prognostic System for Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Retrospective Study of 435 Patients: The Cancer of the Liver Italian Program (CLIP) Investigators. Hepatology 28, 751–755 (1998)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Yamaguchi, R., Yano, H., Iemura, A., Ogasawara, S., Haramaki, M., Kojiro, M.: Expression of Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor in Human Hepatocellular Carcinoma. Hepatology 28, 68–77 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Messerini, L., Novelli, L., Comin, C.E.: Microvessel Density and Clinicopathological Characteristics in Hepatitis C Virus and Hepatitis B Virus Related Hepatocellular Carcinoma. J. Clin. Pathol. 57, 867–871 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lee, T.Y., Purdie, T.G., Stewart, E.: CT Imaging of Angiogenesis. Q. J. Nucl. Med. 47, 171–187 (2003)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Miles, K.A.: Functional Computed Tomography in Oncology. Eur. J. Cancer 38, 2079–2084 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kan, Z., Kobayashi, S., Phongkitkarun, S., Charnsangavej, C.: Functional CT Quantification of Tumor Perfusion After Transhepatic Arterial Embolization in a Rat Model. Radiology 237, 144–150 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kambadakone, A.R., Sahani, D.V.: Body Perfusion CT: Technique, Clinical Applications, and Advances. Radiol. Clin. North Am. 47, 161–178 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Jiang, T., Kambadakone, A., Kulkarni, N.M., Zhu, A.X., Sahani, D.V.: Monitoring Response to Antiangiogenic Treatment and Predicting Outcomes in Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma using Image Biomarkers, CT Perfusion, Tumor Density, and Tumor Size (RECIST). Invest. Radiol. 47, 11–17 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Goh, V., Halligan, S., Bartram, C.I.: Quantitative Tumor Perfusion Assessment with Multidetector CT: Are Measurements from Two Commercial Software Packages Interchangeable? Radiology 242, 777–782 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Koh, T.S., Ng, Q.S., Thng, C.H., Kwek, J.W., Kozarski, R., Goh, V.: Primary Colorectal Cancer: Use of Kinetic Modeling of Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced CT Data to Predict Clinical Outcome. Radiology 267, 145–154 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Brix, G., Griebel, J., Kiessling, F., Wenz, F.: Tracer Kinetic Modelling of Tumour Angiogenesis Based on Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced CT and MRI Measurements. Eur. J. Nucl. Med. Mol. Imaging 37(suppl. 1), S30–S51 (2010)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lee, S.H., Cai, W., Yoshida, H.: Tracer Kinetic Modeling by Morales-Smith Hypothesis in Hepatic Perfusion CT. In: Yoshida, H., Hawkes, D., Vannier, M.W. (eds.) Abdominal Imaging 2012. LNCS, vol. 7601, pp. 292–302. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Thompson Jr., H.K., Starmer, C.F., Whalen, R.E., McIntosh, H.D.: Indicator Transit Time Considered as a Gamma Variate. Circ. Res. 14, 502–515 (1964)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Zhu, F., Carpenter, T., Rodriguez Gonzalez, D., Atkinson, M., Wardlaw, J.: Computed Tomography Perfusion Imaging Denoising using Gaussian Process Regression. Phys. Med. Biol. 57, N183–N198 (2012)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ibanez, L., Schroeder, W., Ng, L., Cates, J.: The ITK Software Guide. Kitware, Inc., Clifton Park (2005)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Eisenhauer, E.A., Therasse, P., Bogaerts, J., Schwartz, L.H., Sargent, D., Ford, R., Dancey, J., Arbuck, S., Gwyther, S., Mooney, M., Rubinstein, L., Shankar, L., Dodd, L., Kaplan, R., Lacombe, D., Verweij, J.: New Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours: Revised RECIST Guideline (Version 1.1). Eur. J. Cancer 45, 228–247 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Sahani, D.V., Kalva, S.P., Hamberg, L.M., Hahn, P.F., Willett, C.G., Saini, S., Mueller, P.R., Lee, T.Y.: Assessing Tumor Perfusion and Treatment Response in Rectal Cancer with Multisection CT: Initial Observations. Radiology 234, 785–792 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Zhang, Q., Yuan, Z.G., Wang, D.Q., Yan, Z.H., Tang, J., Liu, Z.Q.: Perfusion CT Findings in Liver of Patients with Tumor during Chemotherapy. World J. Gastroenterol. 16, 3202–3205 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sang Ho Lee
    • 1
  • Koichi Hayano
    • 2
  • Dushyant Sahani
    • 2
  • Hiroyuki Yoshida
    • 1
  1. 1.3D Imaging Research, Department of RadiologyMassachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical SchoolBostonUSA
  2. 2.Division of Abdominal Imaging and Intervention, Department of RadiologyMassachusetts General HospitalBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations