Value of DCE-MRI and FDG-PET/CT in the prediction of response to preoperative chemotherapy with bevacizumab for colorectal liver metastases

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to assess the role of dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (DCE-MRI) and F-18-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography computed tomography (FDG-PET/CT) for evaluation of response to chemotherapy and bevacizumab and for prediction of progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) with potentially resectable liver lesions. METHODS: A total of 19 mCRC patients were treated with FOLFOX/FOLFIRI and bevacizumab followed by surgery. Dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging and FDG-PET/CT were performed before treatment and after cycle 5. PET results were quantified by calculating maximum standardised uptake value (SUVmax) whereas area under the enhancement curve (AUC), initial AUC (iAUC) and the endothelial transfer constant (K-trans) were used to quantify DCE-MRI. Pathological analysis of the resection specimen was performed, including measurement of microvessel density (MVD) and proliferation index. RESULTS: Both AUC and iAUC were significantly decreased following bevacizumab therapy (median change of 22% (P = 0.002) and 40% (P = 0.001) for AUC and iAUC, respectively). Progression-free survival benefit was shown for patients with >40% reduction in K-trans (P = 0.019). In the group of radiological responders, the median baseline SUVmax was 3.77 (IQR: 2.88-5.60) compared with 7.20 (IQR: 4.67-8.73) in nonresponders (P = 0.021). A higher follow-up SUVmax was correlated with worse PFS (P = 0.012). Median MVD was 10.9. Progression-free survival was significantly shorter in patients with an MVD greater than 10, compared with patients with lower MVD (10 months compared with 16 months, P = 0.016). CONCLUSION: High relative decrease in K-trans, low follow-up SUVmax and low MVD are favourable prognostic factors for mCRC patients treated with bevacizumab before surgery. British Journal of Cancer (2012) 106, 1926-1933. doi:10.1038/bjc.2012.184 www.bjcancer.com Published online 17 May 2012 (C) 2012 Cancer Research UK