Radiology
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2371050766
This Article
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Khandani, A. H.
Right arrow Articles by Semelka, R. C.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Khandani, A. H.
Right arrow Articles by Semelka, R. C.
(Radiology 2005;237:1-2.)
© RSNA, 2005


Science to Practice

Can the Relation between Gadopentetate Dimeglumine and FDG Uptake in Colorectal Liver Metastases Be Used Clinically?

Amir H. Khandani, MD, PhD and Richard C. Semelka, MD

1 Department of Radiology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-7510. richsem{at}med.unc.edu



View larger version (81K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[Download PPT slide]
 
Amir H. Khandani, MD, PhD

 



View larger version (96K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[Download PPT slide]
 
Richard C. Semelka, MD

 
The Setting

The ability to measure basic tumor characteristics, such as blood flow and metabolism, holds promise for clinical radiology. To our knowledge, there are no methods available for routine quantitative measurement of tumor blood flow. In this issue of Radiology, van Laarhoven et al (1) show that measurement of the gadopentetate dimeglumine uptake rate constant kep (a measure of tumor blood flow, vascular surface area, and vascular permeability) with dynamic contrastmaterial–enhanced magnetic resonance (MR) imaging correlates inversely with the tumor metabolism measured with fluoro-2-deoxyglucose (FDG) positron emission tomography (PET) and directly with the tumor vascular density. This article provides interesting insights into the complex relationship between blood flow and tumor metabolism.



View larger version (129K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[Download PPT slide]
 
 
The Science

Dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging and FDG PET have been in clinical use for several years; however, there is little information in the literature on the relationship between tumor blood flow and tumor metabolism. van Laarhoven et al (1) describe an inverse correlation between these two parameters measured as the gadopentetate dimeglumine uptake rate constant kep and the FDG tumor to nontumor ratio (tumor metabolism) in colorectal liver metastases. At the same time, there was no significant correlation between tumor metabolism and tumor hypoxic fraction or in vitro measured tumor vascular density. The observed inverse correlation between tumor blood flow and tumor metabolism implies that an acute closure of tumor vessels may lead not only to a reduced supply of nutrients but also to a reduced supply of oxygen with consequent increase in tumor FDG uptake. It has been shown that tumor cells in an acutely hypoxic environment can increase their FDG uptake to survive the temporary decrease in oxygen supply (2). Closure of tumor vessels as an acute event would also explain the lack of association between FDG tumor to nontumor ratio and vascular density or hypoxic fraction. FDG uptake is determined by an acute decrease in tumor blood flow, while hypoxic fraction reflects both acute and chronic states of hypoxia. The in vitro measured vascular density is a measurement of all tumor vessels, both those that are functional and those that are not functional; thus, they do not correlate with tumor FDG tumor to nontumor ratio.

Tumor vascularization as shown on dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging also reflects both tumor blood flow and capillary permeability and surface area, which in itself is a physiologically interesting dynamic that has been reported previously (3).

The Practice

Clinical use.—FDG PET has been used increasingly in the diagnosis, staging, and restaging of malignant tumors; however, the sensitivity of FDG PET is about 50%–60% for tumors such as renal cell carcinoma or bronchioloalveolar lung carcinoma, although glucose is the main source of energy for these tumors. The low detectability of these tumors on FDG PET images is likely associated with their relatively slow growth pattern, their relatively high amount of noncellular components, or both, which cause a relatively low FDG count density during image acquisition (4). The data presented by van Laarhoven et al (1) describe an important association between characteristics of tumor vasculature and tumor metabolism in colorectal liver metastases, which might be extrapolated to tumors with low detectability on FDG PET images and which might provide insight into associations between metabolism and blood flow in those tumors.

Dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging is a useful surrogate for tumor vascularization that provides insight into the response of liver metastases to chemotherapy (5). The study by van Laarhoven et al (1) validates the use of MR imaging for this role by demonstrating correlation with vascular density.

Future opportunities and challenges.—Imaging of angiogenesis will play an important role in the assessment of tumor response to therapy because of the critical role of angiogenesis in tumor growth (6). Dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging has great potential for use in diagnosis of disease and monitoring of therapy. Validation of the data presented by van Laarhoven et al and new studies comparing characteristics of tumor vasculature and tumor glucose metabolism in other malignancies are required before the relationship between tumor vasculature and tumor glucose metabolism can be fully elucidated. This may reveal a complementary role for the use of dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging and FDG PET in the monitoring of tumor response to various treatment regimens. Quantification of vascular parameters and standardization of dynamic MR imaging protocols, as well as development of models to represent heterogeneity of blood flow within the tumor, are some of the future challenges (7).

Summary

van Laarhoven et al demonstrated an inverse relationship between the functional tumor vascularization and tumor metabolism in colorectal liver metastases (1). This will likely facilitate better understanding of tumor physiology and development of new imaging strategies in the diagnosis and treatment of cancer.

References

  1. van Laarhoven HW, de Geus-Oei LF, Wiering B, et al. Gadopentetate dimeglumine and FDG uptake in liver metastases of colorectal carcinoma as determined with MR imaging and PET. Radiology 2005;237:181–188.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  2. Clavo AC, Brown RS, Wahl RL. Fluorodeoxyglucose uptake in human cancer cell lines is increased by hypoxia. J Nucl Med 1995;36(9):1625–1632.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  3. de Lussanet QG, Langereis S, Beets-Tan RG, et al. Dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging kinetic parameters and molecular weight of dendritic contrast agents in tumor angiogenesis in mice. Radiology 2005;235(1):65–72.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  4. Berger KL, Nicholson SA, Dehdashti F, Siegel BA. FDG PET evaluation of mucinous neoplasms: correlation of FDG uptake with histopathologic features. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2000;174(4):1005–1008.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  5. Braga L, Semelka RC, Peitrobon R, Martin D, DeBarros N, Guller U. Does hypervascularity of liver metastases as detected on MRI predict disease progression in breast cancer patients? AJR Am J Roentgenol 2004;182:1207–1213.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  6. McDonald DM, Choyke PL. Imaging of angiogenesis: from microscope to clinic. Nat Med 2003;9(6):713–725.[CrossRef][Medline]
  7. Padhani AR, Husband JE. Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI studies in oncology with an emphasis on quantification, validation and human studies. Clin Radiol 2001;56(8):607–620.[CrossRef][Medline]




This Article
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Khandani, A. H.
Right arrow Articles by Semelka, R. C.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Khandani, A. H.
Right arrow Articles by Semelka, R. C.


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
RADIOLOGY RADIOGRAPHICS RSNA JOURNALS ONLINE