Lipiodol as an intra-procedural imaging biomarker for liver tumor response to transarterial chemoembolization: Post-hoc analysis of a prospective clinical trial

Abstract

BackgroundThe use of the ethiodized oil- Lipiodol in conventional trans-arterial chemoembolization (cTACE) ensures radiopacity to visualize drug delivery in the process of providing selective drug targeting to hepatic cancers and arterial embolization. Lipiodol functions as a carrier of chemo drugs for targeted therapy, as an embolic agent, augmenting the drug effect by efflux into the portal veins as well as a predictor for the tumor response and survival. PurposeTo prospectively evaluate the role of 3D quantitative assessment of intra-procedural Lipiodol deposition in liver tumors on CBCT immediately after cTACE as a predictive biomarker for the outcome of cTACE. Materials & methodsThis was a post-hoc analysis of data from an IRB-approved prospective clinical trial. Thirty-two patients with hepatocellular carcinoma or liver metastases underwent contrast enhanced CBCT obtained immediately after cTACE, unenhanced MDCT at 24 h after cTACE, and follow-up imaging 30-, 90- and 180-days post-procedure. Lipiodol deposition was quantified on CBCT after cTACE and was characterized by 4 ordinal levels: ≤25%, >25–50%, >50–75%, >75%. Tumor response was assessed on follow-up MRI. Lipiodol deposition on imaging, correlation between Lipiodol deposition and tumor response criteria, and correlation between Lipiodol coverage and median overall survival (MOS) were evaluated. ResultsImage analysis demonstrated a high degree of agreement between the Lipiodol deposition on CBCT and the 24 h post-TACE CT, with a Bland-Altman plot of Lipiodol deposition on imaging demonstrated a bias of 2.75, with 95%-limits-of-agreement: −16.6 to 22.1%. An inverse relationship between Lipiodol deposition in responders versus non-responders for two-dimensional EASL reached statistical significance at 30 days (p = 0.02) and 90 days (p = 0.05). Comparing the Lipiodol deposition in Modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (mRECIST) responders versus non-responders showed a statistically significant higher volumetric deposition in responders for European Association for the Study of the Liver (EASL)-30d, EASL-90d, and quantitative EASL-180d. The correlation between the relative Lipiodol deposition and the change in enhancing tumor volume showed a negative association post-cTACE (30-day: p < 0.001; rho = −0.63). A Kaplan-Meier analysis for patients with high vs. low Lipiodol deposition showed a MOS of 46 vs. 33 months (p = 0.05). Conclusion3D quantification of Lipiodol deposition on intra-procedural CBCT is a predictive biomarker of outcome in patients with primary or metastatic liver cancer undergoing cTACE. There are spatial and volumetric agreements between 3D quantification of Lipiodol deposition on intra-procedural CBCT and 24 h post-cTACE MDCT. The spatial and volumetric agreement between Lipiodol deposition on intra-procedural CBCT and 24 h post-cTACE MDCT could suggest that acquiring MDCT 24 h after cTACE is redundant. Importantly, the demonstrated relationship between levels of tumor coverage with Lipiodol and degree and timeline of tumor response after cTACE underline the role of Lipiodol as an intra-procedural surrogate for tumor response, with potential implications for the prediction of survival.