Janine Kalkmann1, Michael Forsting, Joerg Stattaus. 1. Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology and Neuroradiology, University Hospital Essen, Germany. janine.kalkmann@uk-essen.de
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to evaluate liver volume variations (LVV) as a parameter to assess the therapy response in patients with advanced liver metastasis (aLM). METHODS: Patients with colorectal cancer and consecutive computed tomography (CT) scans were divided into a group with aLM receiving palliative chemotherapy (n = 24) and a control group (n = 21) being followed after curative therapy. Liver volumetry was performed manually. The therapy response was assessed according to the response evaluation criteria in solid tumors (RECIST, n = 69). LVV were compared between groups and to variations in the sum-of-longest-diameter (SLDV). Using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis, LVV were evaluated for distinguishing between progressive disease (PD) and stable disease (SD)/partial remission (PR). RESULTS: Median LVV between patients with aLM (10.0%) and the control group (4.0%) differed significantly (p < 0.01). PD led to a larger median LVV (26.8%) than PR/SD (5.0%, p < 0.01). LVV in aLM patients correlated positively with SLDV (r = 0.71, p < 0.01). A cut-off value of 9.5% allowed distinguishing between PD and SD/PR (sensitivity: 86%, specificity: 88%, p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: LVV are helpful to assess PD in patients with aLM.
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to evaluate liver volume variations (LVV) as a parameter to assess the therapy response in patients with advanced liver metastasis (aLM). METHODS:Patients with colorectal cancer and consecutive computed tomography (CT) scans were divided into a group with aLM receiving palliative chemotherapy (n = 24) and a control group (n = 21) being followed after curative therapy. Liver volumetry was performed manually. The therapy response was assessed according to the response evaluation criteria in solid tumors (RECIST, n = 69). LVV were compared between groups and to variations in the sum-of-longest-diameter (SLDV). Using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis, LVV were evaluated for distinguishing between progressive disease (PD) and stable disease (SD)/partial remission (PR). RESULTS: Median LVV between patients with aLM (10.0%) and the control group (4.0%) differed significantly (p < 0.01). PD led to a larger median LVV (26.8%) than PR/SD (5.0%, p < 0.01). LVV in aLM patients correlated positively with SLDV (r = 0.71, p < 0.01). A cut-off value of 9.5% allowed distinguishing between PD and SD/PR (sensitivity: 86%, specificity: 88%, p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: LVV are helpful to assess PD in patients with aLM.