Incremental Utility of First-Pass Perfusion CMR for Prognostic Risk Stratification of Cancer-Associated Cardiac Masses.

TitleIncremental Utility of First-Pass Perfusion CMR for Prognostic Risk Stratification of Cancer-Associated Cardiac Masses.
Publication TypeJournal Article
Year of Publication2024
AuthorsChan AT, Maya TRuiz, Park C, Tak K, Liberman N, Jain RH, Park MJ, Park RY, Grizzard J, Kim G, Tap WD, Jessurun J, Liu J, Kim J, Steingart RM, Weinsaft JW
JournalJACC Cardiovasc Imaging
Volume17
Issue2
Pagination128-145
Date Published2024 Feb
ISSN1876-7591
KeywordsAdult, Contrast Media, Gadolinium, Heart Neoplasms, Humans, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Cine, Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy, Perfusion, Predictive Value of Tests, Prognosis, Risk Assessment
Abstract

BACKGROUND: Cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) differentiates cardiac metastasis (CMET) and cardiac thrombus (CTHR) based on tissue characteristics stemming from vascularity on late gadolinium enhancement (LGE). Perfusion CMR can assess magnitude of vascularity; utility for cardiac masses (CMASS) is unknown.

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to determine if perfusion CMR provides diagnostic and prognostic utility for CMASS beyond binary differentiation of CMET and CTHR.

METHODS: The population comprised adult cancer patients with CMASS on CMR; CMET and CTHR were defined using LGE-CMR: CMASS+ patients were matched to CMASS- control subjects for cancer type/stage. First-pass perfusion CMR was interpreted visually and semiquantitatively for CMASS vascularity, including contrast enhancement ratio (CER) (plateau vs baseline) and contrast uptake rate (CUR) (slope). Follow-up was performed for all-cause mortality.

RESULTS: A total of 462 cancer patients were studied, including patients with (CMET = 173, CTHR = 69) and without CMASS on LGE-CMR. On perfusion CMR, CER and CUR were higher within CMET vs CTHR (P < 0.001); CUR yielded better performance (AUC: 0.89-0.93) than CER (AUC: 0.66-0.72) (both P < 0.001) to differentiate LGE-CMR-evidenced CMET and CTHR, although both CUR (P = 0.10) and CER (P = 0.01) typically misclassified CMET with minimal enhancement. During follow-up, mortality among CMET patients was high but variable; 47% of patients were alive 1 year post-CMR. Patients with semiquantitative perfusion CMR-evidenced CMET had higher mortality than control subjects (HR: 1.42 [95% CI: 1.06-1.90]; P = 0.02), paralleling visual perfusion CMR (HR: 1.47 [95% CI: 1.12-1.94]; P = 0.006) and LGE-CMR (HR: 1.52 [95% CI: 1.16-2.00]; P = 0.003). Among patients with CMET on LGE-CMR, mortality was highest among patients (P = 0.002) with lesions in the bottom perfusion (CER) tertile, corresponding to low vascularity. Among CMET and cancer-matched control subjects, mortality was equivalent (P = NS) among patients with lesions in the upper CER tertile (corresponding to higher lesion vascularity). Conversely, patients with CMET in the middle (P = 0.03) and lowest (lowest vascularity) (P = 0.001) CER tertiles had increased mortality.

CONCLUSIONS: Perfusion CMR yields prognostic utility that complements LGE-CMR: Among cancer patients with LGE-CMR defined CMET, mortality increases in proportion to magnitude of lesion hypoperfusion.

DOI10.1016/j.jcmg.2023.05.007
Alternate JournalJACC Cardiovasc Imaging
PubMed ID37410010
Related Faculty: 
Jose Jessurun, M.D.

Pathology & Laboratory Medicine 1300 York Avenue New York, NY 10065 Phone: (212) 746-6464
Surgical Pathology: (212) 746-2700