CONTEXT: Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) (unidimensional), World Health Organization (WHO) (bidimensional), and European Association for Study of the Liver (EASL) (necrosis) guidelines are commonly used to assess response following therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). No universally accepted standard exists. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate intermethod agreement between these 3 imaging guidelines and to introduce the concept of the "primary index lesion" as a biomarker for response. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Single-center comprehensive imaging analysis including 245 consecutive patients with HCC who were treated with chemoembolization or radioembolization between January 2000 and December 2008. Computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging scans (N = 1065) were reviewed to assess response in the "primary index lesion," defined as the largest tumor targeted during first treatment. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Intermethod agreement (kappa statistics) between RECIST, WHO, and EASL guidelines response; correlation of WHO and EASL response in the primary index lesion with time to progression and survival. RESULTS: Kappa coefficients were 0.86 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.80-0.92) between the WHO and RECIST guidelines, 0.24 (95% CI, 0.16-0.33) between RECIST and EASL, and 0.28 (95% CI, 0.19-0.36) between WHO and EASL. Disease progressed in 96 patients; 113 died. The hazard ratio for time to progression in responders compared with nonresponders was 0.36 (95% CI, 0.23-0.57) for WHO, 0.38 (95% CI, 0.24-0.58) for RECIST, and 0.38 (95% CI, 0.22-0.64) for EASL. Hazard ratios for survival in responders compared with nonresponders in univariate and multivariate analyses were 0.46 (95% CI, 0.32-0.67) and 0.55 (95% CI, 0.35-0.84) for WHO and 0.36 (95% CI, 0.22-0.57) and 0.54 (95% CI, 0.34-0.85) for EASL. Hazard ratios for survival in responders vs nonresponders in patients with solitary and multifocal HCC were 0.39 (95% CI, 0.19-0.77) and 0.51 (95% CI, 0.32-0.82) for WHO and 0.26 (95% CI, 0.10-0.67) and 0.47 (95% CI, 0.28-0.79) for EASL. CONCLUSIONS: Among a group of patients with HCC, agreement for classification of therapeutic response was high between the RECIST and WHO guidelines but low between each of these and EASL. Application of these methods to measure response in a primary index lesion resulted in statistically significant correlations with disease progression and survival.
CONTEXT: Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) (unidimensional), World Health Organization (WHO) (bidimensional), and European Association for Study of the Liver (EASL) (necrosis) guidelines are commonly used to assess response following therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). No universally accepted standard exists. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate intermethod agreement between these 3 imaging guidelines and to introduce the concept of the "primary index lesion" as a biomarker for response. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Single-center comprehensive imaging analysis including 245 consecutive patients with HCC who were treated with chemoembolization or radioembolization between January 2000 and December 2008. Computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging scans (N = 1065) were reviewed to assess response in the "primary index lesion," defined as the largest tumor targeted during first treatment. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Intermethod agreement (kappa statistics) between RECIST, WHO, and EASL guidelines response; correlation of WHO and EASL response in the primary index lesion with time to progression and survival. RESULTS: Kappa coefficients were 0.86 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.80-0.92) between the WHO and RECIST guidelines, 0.24 (95% CI, 0.16-0.33) between RECIST and EASL, and 0.28 (95% CI, 0.19-0.36) between WHO and EASL. Disease progressed in 96 patients; 113 died. The hazard ratio for time to progression in responders compared with nonresponders was 0.36 (95% CI, 0.23-0.57) for WHO, 0.38 (95% CI, 0.24-0.58) for RECIST, and 0.38 (95% CI, 0.22-0.64) for EASL. Hazard ratios for survival in responders compared with nonresponders in univariate and multivariate analyses were 0.46 (95% CI, 0.32-0.67) and 0.55 (95% CI, 0.35-0.84) for WHO and 0.36 (95% CI, 0.22-0.57) and 0.54 (95% CI, 0.34-0.85) for EASL. Hazard ratios for survival in responders vs nonresponders in patients with solitary and multifocal HCC were 0.39 (95% CI, 0.19-0.77) and 0.51 (95% CI, 0.32-0.82) for WHO and 0.26 (95% CI, 0.10-0.67) and 0.47 (95% CI, 0.28-0.79) for EASL. CONCLUSIONS: Among a group of patients with HCC, agreement for classification of therapeutic response was high between the RECIST and WHO guidelines but low between each of these and EASL. Application of these methods to measure response in a primary index lesion resulted in statistically significant correlations with disease progression and survival.
Authors: J Bruix; M Sherman; J M Llovet; M Beaugrand; R Lencioni; A K Burroughs; E Christensen; L Pagliaro; M Colombo; J Rodés Journal: J Hepatol Date: 2001-09 Impact factor: 25.083
Authors: P Therasse; S G Arbuck; E A Eisenhauer; J Wanders; R S Kaplan; L Rubinstein; J Verweij; M Van Glabbeke; A T van Oosterom; M C Christian; S G Gwyther Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2000-02-02 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Yamini K Maddala; Linda Stadheim; James C Andrews; Lawrence J Burgart; Charles B Rosen; Walter K Kremers; Gregory Gores Journal: Liver Transpl Date: 2004-03 Impact factor: 5.799
Authors: Joon Oh Park; Soon Il Lee; Seo Young Song; Kihyun Kim; Won Seog Kim; Chul Won Jung; Young Suk Park; Young-Hyuk Im; Won Ki Kang; Mark Hong Lee; Kyung Soo Lee; Keunchil Park Journal: Jpn J Clin Oncol Date: 2003-10 Impact factor: 3.019
Authors: Khairuddin Memon; Robert J Lewandowski; Laura Kulik; Ahsun Riaz; Mary F Mulcahy; Riad Salem Journal: Semin Radiat Oncol Date: 2011-10 Impact factor: 5.934
Authors: Andrew S Epstein; Eileen M O'Reilly; Maeve Lowery; Ali Shamseddine; Jinru Shia; Sally Temraz; Ashwaq Al-Olayan; Mohamed Naghy; David Kelsen; Manish A Shah; Ghassan K Abou-Alfa Journal: J Gastrointest Cancer Date: 2011-12
Authors: Robert J Lewandowski; Mary F Mulcahy; Laura M Kulik; Ahsun Riaz; Robert K Ryu; Talia B Baker; Saad M Ibrahim; Michael I Abecassis; Frank H Miller; Kent T Sato; Seanthan Senthilnathan; Scott A Resnick; Edward Wang; Ramona Gupta; Richard Chen; Steven B Newman; Howard B Chrisman; Albert A Nemcek; Robert L Vogelzang; Reed A Omary; Al B Benson; Riad Salem Journal: Radiology Date: 2010-06 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Andrew C Gordon; William J Gradishar; Virginia G Kaklamani; Avesh J Thuluvath; Robert K Ryu; Kent T Sato; Vanessa L Gates; Riad Salem; Robert J Lewandowski Journal: J Vasc Interv Radiol Date: 2014-08-22 Impact factor: 3.464
Authors: Riad Salem; Robert J Lewandowski; Laura Kulik; Edward Wang; Ahsun Riaz; Robert K Ryu; Kent T Sato; Ramona Gupta; Paul Nikolaidis; Frank H Miller; Vahid Yaghmai; Saad M Ibrahim; Seanthan Senthilnathan; Talia Baker; Vanessa L Gates; Bassel Atassi; Steven Newman; Khairuddin Memon; Richard Chen; Robert L Vogelzang; Albert A Nemcek; Scott A Resnick; Howard B Chrisman; James Carr; Reed A Omary; Michael Abecassis; Al B Benson; Mary F Mulcahy Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2010-10-30 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: Ahmed O Kaseb; Neeraj N Shah; Hesham M Hassabo; Jeffrey S Morris; Lianchun Xiao; Yasmin M Abaza; Khalid Soliman; Ju-Seog Lee; Jean-Nicholas Vauthey; Michael Wallace; Thomas A Aloia; Steven Curley; James L Abbruzzese; Manal M Hassan Journal: Oncology Date: 2014-01-08 Impact factor: 2.935
Authors: Riad Salem; Andrew C Gordon; Samdeep Mouli; Ryan Hickey; Joseph Kallini; Ahmed Gabr; Mary F Mulcahy; Talia Baker; Michael Abecassis; Frank H Miller; Vahid Yaghmai; Kent Sato; Kush Desai; Bartley Thornburg; Al B Benson; Alfred Rademaker; Daniel Ganger; Laura Kulik; Robert J Lewandowski Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2016-08-27 Impact factor: 22.682