Korean Journal of Radiology

The Korean Society of Radiology (대한영상의학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Vertebral Venous Congestion That May Mimic Vertebral Metastasis on Contrast-Enhanced Chest Computed Tomography in Chemoport Inserted Patients

  • Jeong In Shin (Department of Radiology and Research Institute of Radiology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine) ;
  • Choong Guen Chee (Department of Radiology and Research Institute of Radiology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine) ;
  • Min A Yoon (Department of Radiology and Research Institute of Radiology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine) ;
  • Hye Won Chung (Department of Radiology and Research Institute of Radiology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine) ;
  • Min Hee Lee (Department of Radiology and Research Institute of Radiology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine) ;
  • Sang Hoon Lee (Department of Radiology and Research Institute of Radiology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine)
  • Received : 2022.12.14
  • Accepted : 2023.09.22
  • Published : 2024.01.01
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Objective: This study aimed to determine the prevalence of vertebral venous congestion (VVC) in patients with chemoport insertion, evaluate the imaging characteristics of nodular VVC, and identify the factors associated with VVC. Materials and Methods: This retrospective single-center study was based on follow-up contrast-enhanced chest computed tomography (CT) of 1412 adult patients who underwent chemoport insertion between January 2016 and December 2016. The prevalence of venous stenosis, reflux, and VVC were evaluated. The imaging features of nodular VVC, including specific locations within the vertebral body, were analyzed. To identify the factors associated with VVC, patients with VVC were compared with a subset of patients without VVC who had been followed up for > 3 years without developing VVC after chemoport insertion. Toward this, a multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed. Results: After excluding 333 patients, 1079 were analyzed (mean age ± standard deviation, 62.3 ± 11.6 years; 540 females). The prevalence of VVC was 5.8% (63/1079), with all patients (63/63) demonstrating vertebral venous reflux and 67% (42/63) with innominate vein stenosis. The median interval between chemoport insertion and VVC was 515 days (interquartile range, 204-881 days). The prevalence of nodular VVC was 1.5% (16/1079), with a mean size of 5.9 ± 3.1 mm and attenuation of 784 ± 162 HU. Nodular VVC tended to be located subcortically. Forty-four patients with VVC underwent CT examinations with contrast injections in both arms; the VVC disappeared in 70% (31/44) when the contrast was injected in the arm contralateral to the chemoport site. Bevacizumab use was independently associated with VVC (odds ratio, 3.45; P < 0.001). Conclusion: The prevalence of VVC and nodular VVC was low in patients who underwent chemoport insertion. Nodular VVC was always accompanied by vertebral venous reflux and tended to be located subcortically. To avoid VVC, contrast injection in the arm contralateral to the chemoport site is preferred.

Keywords

References

  1. Verso M, Agnelli G. Venous thromboembolism associated with long-term use of central venous catheters in cancer patients. J Clin Oncol 2003;21:3665-3675  https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2003.08.008
  2. Lee AY, Levine MN, Butler G, Webb C, Costantini L, Gu C, et al. Incidence, risk factors, and outcomes of catheter-related thrombosis in adult patients with cancer. J Clin Oncol 2006;24:1404-1408  https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2005.03.5600
  3. Machat S, Eisenhuber E, Pfarl G, Stubler J, Koelblinger C, Zacherl J, et al. Complications of central venous port systems: a pictorial review. Insights Imaging 2019;10:86 
  4. Walser EM. Venous access ports: indications, implantation technique, follow-up, and complications. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 2012;35:751-764  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00270-011-0271-2
  5. Gonsalves CF, Eschelman DJ, Sullivan KL, DuBois N, Bonn J. Incidence of central vein stenosis and occlusion following upper extremity PICC and port placement. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 2003;26:123-127  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00270-002-2628-z
  6. Richard HM 3rd, Selby JB Jr, Gay SB, Tegtmeyer CJ. Normal venous anatomy and collateral pathways in upper extremity venous thrombosis. Radiographics 1992;12:527-534  https://doi.org/10.1148/radiographics.12.3.1609143
  7. Kapur S, Paik E, Rezaei A, Vu DN. Where there is blood, there is a way: unusual collateral vessels in superior and inferior vena cava obstruction. Radiographics 2010;30:67-78  https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.301095724
  8. Kara M, Pradel C, Phan C, Miquel A, Arrive L. CT features of vertebral venous congestion simulating sclerotic metastases in nine patients with thrombosis of the superior vena cava. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2016;207:80-86  https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.15.15756
  9. Thomas N, Oliver TB, Sudarshan T. Vanishing bone metastases- -a pitfall in the interpretation of contrast enhanced CT in patients with superior vena cava obstruction. Br J Radiol 2011;84:e176-e178  https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr/50676625
  10. Wilson ES. Systemic to pulmonary venous communication in the superior vena caval syndrome. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1976;127:247-249  https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.127.2.247
  11. Fukamizu EMN, Seabra A, Otto DY, Sawamura MVY, Bordalo-Rodrigues M, Helito PVP. Vanishing bone metastasis: pictorial essay. Radiol Bras 2021;54:336-340  https://doi.org/10.1590/0100-3984.2020.0124
  12. Beck KS, Han DH. Vertebral venous congestion mimicking sclerotic metastasis in the absence of venous obstruction. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2017;208:W157-W158  https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.16.17473
  13. Valji K, Maroney TP. Vascular and interventional radiology. 1st ed. Philadelphia: Saunders, 1999:320 
  14. Geerts W. Central venous catheter-related thrombosis. Hematology Am Soc Hematol Educ Program 2014;2014:306-311  https://doi.org/10.1182/asheducation-2014.1.306
  15. Leung A, Heal C, Perera M, Pretorius C. A systematic review of patient-related risk factors for catheter-related thrombosis. J Thromb Thrombolysis 2015;40:363-373  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11239-015-1175-9
  16. Saber W, Moua T, Williams EC, Verso M, Agnelli G, Couban S, et al. Risk factors for catheter-related thrombosis (CRT) in cancer patients: a patient-level data (IPD) meta-analysis of clinical trials and prospective studies. J Thromb Haemost 2011;9:312-319  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1538-7836.2010.04126.x
  17. Tesselaar ME, Ouwerkerk J, Nooy MA, Rosendaal FR, Osanto S. Risk factors for catheter-related thrombosis in cancer patients. Eur J Cancer 2004;40:2253-2259  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2004.06.023
  18. Hicklin DJ, Ellis LM. Role of the vascular endothelial growth factor pathway in tumor growth and angiogenesis. J Clin Oncol 2005;23:1011-1027  https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2005.06.081
  19. Kim JH, Kim JE, Hong YS, Kim SY, Kim KP, Choi KE, et al. Increased incidence of chemoport-related thrombosis in patients with colorectal cancer receiving bevacizumab: a single-institutional experience. Chin J Cancer Res 2018;30:460-467  https://doi.org/10.21147/j.issn.1000-9604.2018.04.09
  20. Tabatabaie O, Kasumova GG, Eskander MF, Critchlow JF, Tawa NE, Tseng JF. Totally implantable venous access devices: a review of complications and management strategies. Am J Clin Oncol 2017;40:94-105  https://doi.org/10.1097/COC.0000000000000361
  21. Shah T, Vijay DG, Shah N, Patel B, Patel S, Khant N, et al. Chemoport insertion-less is more. Indian J Surg Oncol 2021;12:139-145  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13193-020-01265-6
  22. Kim YK, Sung YM, Hwang KH, Cho EK, Choi HY. Pseudopathologic vertebral body enhancement in the presence of superior vena cava obstruction on computed tomography. Spine J 2015;15:1295-1301  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2013.07.440
  23. Berritto D, Abboud S, Kosmas C, Riherd D, Robbin M. Vertebral body enhancement mimicking sclerotic osseous lesions in the setting of bilateral brachiocephalic vein thrombosis. Skeletal Radiol 2015;44:303-305  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00256-014-2037-9
  24. Rasselet B, Larbi A, Viala P, Molinari N, Tetreau R, Faruch-Bilfeld M, et al. Prevalence and characteristics of intravertebral enhancement on contrast-enhanced CT scans in cancer patients. Eur J Radiol 2017;86:1-5  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2016.10.029
  25. McGraw JK, Heatwole EV, Strnad BT, Silber JS, Patzilk SB, Boorstein JM. Predictive value of intraosseous venography before percutaneous vertebroplasty. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2002;13(2 Pt 1):149-153  https://doi.org/10.1016/S1051-0443(07)61931-9
  26. Alili C, Larbi A, Thouvenin Y, Viala P, Ruyer A, Baron MP, et al. Transient high density vertebral bone lesions. Skeletal Radiol 2013;42:1603, 1633-1635  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00256-013-1621-8
  27. Ulano A, Bredella MA, Burke P, Chebib I, Simeone FJ, Huang AJ, et al. Distinguishing untreated osteoblastic metastases from enostoses using CT attenuation measurements. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2016;207:362-368  https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.15.15559
  28. Demondion X, Herbinet P, Van Sint Jan S, Boutry N, Chantelot C, Cotten A. Imaging assessment of thoracic outlet syndrome. Radiographics 2006;26:1735-1750  https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.266055079
  29. Yun EJ, Yoon DY, Han A, Seo YL, Lim KJ, Choi CS, et al. Central venous stenosis of left versus right arm: its prevalence and effects on image quality in CT of the neck. Eur J Radiol 2012;81:e126-e131  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2010.12.088
  30. Esquivel A, Ferrero A, Mileto A, Baffour F, Horst K, Rajiah PS, et al. Photon-counting detector CT: key points radiologists should know. Korean J Radiol 2022;23:854-865  https://doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2022.0377
  31. Hamid S, Nasir MU, So A, Andrews G, Nicolaou S, Qamar SR. Clinical applications of dual-energy CT. Korean J Radiol 2021;22:970-982  https://doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2020.0996
  32. Kim C, Kim W, Park SJ, Lee YH, Hwang SH, Yong HS, et al. Application of dual-energy spectral computed tomography to thoracic oncology imaging. Korean J Radiol 2020;21:838-850  https://doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2019.0711
  33. Chen N, Ren M, Li R, Deng X, Li Y, Yan K, et al. Bevacizumab promotes venous thromboembolism through the induction of PAI-1 in a mouse xenograft model of human lung carcinoma. Mol Cancer 2015;14:140 
  34. Totzeck M, Mincu RI, Rassaf T. Cardiovascular adverse events in patients with cancer treated with bevacizumab: a meta-analysis of more than 20 000 patients. J Am Heart Assoc 2017;6:e006278 
  35. Hurwitz HI, Saltz LB, Van Cutsem E, Cassidy J, Wiedemann J, Sirzen F, et al. Venous thromboembolic events with chemotherapy plus bevacizumab: a pooled analysis of patients in randomized phase II and III studies. J Clin Oncol 2011;29:1757-1764  https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2010.32.3220
  36. Scappaticci FA, Skillings JR, Holden SN, Gerber HP, Miller K, Kabbinavar F, et al. Arterial thromboembolic events in patients with metastatic carcinoma treated with chemotherapy and bevacizumab. J Natl Cancer Inst 2007;99:1232-1239  https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djm086
  37. Nalluri SR, Chu D, Keresztes R, Zhu X, Wu S. Risk of venous thromboembolism with the angiogenesis inhibitor bevacizumab in cancer patients: a meta-analysis. JAMA 2008;300:2277-2285 https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2008.656