Literature DB >> 22995582

Prospective comparison of prognostic values of modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours with European Association for the Study of the Liver criteria in hepatocellular carcinoma following chemoembolisation.

Beom Kyung Kim1, Kyung Ah Kim, Jun Yong Park, Sang Hoon Ahn, Chae Yoon Chon, Kwang-Hyub Han, Seung Up Kim, Myeong-Jin Kim.   

Abstract

BACKGROUNDS: European Association for the Study of the Liver (EASL) and modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours (mRECIST) guidelines, which measure changes in arterialised hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), differ in terms of number of target lesions (all versus ≤2) and calculation method (bidimensional versus unidimensional). We compared prognostic values of mRECIST for predicting overall survival (OS) with reference to EASL criteria in treatment-naïve HCC undergoing trans-arterial chemoembolisation (TACE).
METHODS: The ability to predict OS during longitudinal follow-up was expressed as C-index, and a sample size of 292 patients was required to validate its equivalence between each criteria. Treatment responses were assessed using both guidelines 4weeks after the first TACE, using dynamic computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging. Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression analyses were used to explore differences in OS between responders (complete or partial) and non-responders (stable or progressive disease), defined by each method.
RESULTS: C-index for EASL and mRECIST guidelines was 0.753 and 0.759, respectively, demonstrating equivalence between two methods. Differences in median OS between responders and non-responders were statistically significant for both EASL (30.1 versus 18.7 months, p<0.001) and mRECIST (33.8 versus 17.1 months, p<0.001) guidelines. In addition to radiological response, α-fetoprotein (p<0.001), tumour number (p<0.001) and tumour size (p=0.048) were significant predictors of OS. In multivariate analysis, radiological criteria, tumour number and α-fetoprotein were identified as independent predictors (all p<0.05).
CONCLUSION: mRECIST, a simpler method, provided prognostic values for predicting OS equivalent to EASL criteria in patients with HCC undergoing TACE as an initial treatment modality.
Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22995582     DOI: 10.1016/j.ejca.2012.08.022

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Cancer        ISSN: 0959-8049            Impact factor:   9.162


  28 in total

1.  Novel imaging biomarkers of response to transcatheter arterial chemoembolization in hepatocellular carcinoma patients.

Authors:  Sylvain Favelier; Louis Estivalet; Pierre Pottecher; Romaric Loffroy
Journal:  Chin J Cancer Res       Date:  2015-12       Impact factor: 5.087

Review 2.  Recommendations for the use of chemoembolization in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma: Usefulness of scoring system?

Authors:  Xavier Adhoute; Guillaume Penaranda; Paul Castellani; Herve Perrier; Marc Bourliere
Journal:  World J Hepatol       Date:  2015-03-27

Review 3.  Role of Transcatheter Intra-arterial Therapies for Hepatocellular Carcinoma.

Authors:  Shashi B Paul; Hanish Sharma
Journal:  J Clin Exp Hepatol       Date:  2014-05-24

Review 4.  Asia-Pacific clinical practice guidelines on the management of hepatocellular carcinoma: a 2017 update.

Authors:  Masao Omata; Ann-Lii Cheng; Norihiro Kokudo; Masatoshi Kudo; Jeong Min Lee; Jidong Jia; Ryosuke Tateishi; Kwang-Hyub Han; Yoghesh K Chawla; Shuichiro Shiina; Wasim Jafri; Diana Alcantara Payawal; Takamasa Ohki; Sadahisa Ogasawara; Pei-Jer Chen; Cosmas Rinaldi A Lesmana; Laurentius A Lesmana; Rino A Gani; Shuntaro Obi; A Kadir Dokmeci; Shiv Kumar Sarin
Journal:  Hepatol Int       Date:  2017-06-15       Impact factor: 6.047

5.  Interreader and inter-test agreement in assessing treatment response following transarterial embolization for hepatocellular carcinoma.

Authors:  Olivio F Donati; Richard Kinh Gian Do; Andreas M Hötker; Seth S Katz; Junting Zheng; Chaya S Moskowitz; Christopher Beattie; Karen T Brown
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2015-04-08       Impact factor: 5.315

6.  Tumor Volume Doubling Time as a Dynamic Prognostic Marker for Patients with Hepatocellular Carcinoma.

Authors:  Jong Kwan Kim; Hyung-Don Kim; Mi-Jung Jun; Sung-Cheol Yun; Ju Hyun Shim; Han Chu Lee; Danbi Lee; Jihyun An; Young-Suk Lim; Young-Hwa Chung; Yung Sang Lee; Kang Mo Kim
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2017-08-16       Impact factor: 3.199

Review 7.  Assessment of response to therapy in hepatocellular carcinoma.

Authors:  Tushar Patel; Denise Harnois
Journal:  Ann Med       Date:  2014-04-10       Impact factor: 4.709

Review 8.  [Computed tomographic morphological evaluation of neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Effectiveness of the therapy for colorectal liver metastases].

Authors:  G Folprecht; J Weitz; R-T Hoffmann
Journal:  Chirurg       Date:  2014-01       Impact factor: 0.955

9.  Radiological-pathological analysis of WHO, RECIST, EASL, mRECIST and DWI: Imaging analysis from a prospective randomized trial of Y90 ± sorafenib.

Authors:  Michael Vouche; Laura Kulik; Rohi Atassi; Khairuddin Memon; Ryan Hickey; Daniel Ganger; Frank H Miller; Vahid Yaghmai; Michael Abecassis; Talia Baker; Mary Mulcahy; Ritu Nayar; Robert J Lewandowski; Riad Salem
Journal:  Hepatology       Date:  2013-10-01       Impact factor: 17.425

10.  Efficacy of TACE in TIPS patients: comparison of treatment response to chemoembolization for hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with and without a transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt.

Authors:  Yuo-Chen Kuo; Maureen P Kohi; David M Naeger; Ricky T Tong; K Pallav Kolli; Andrew G Taylor; Jeanne M Laberge; Robert K Kerlan; Nicholas Fidelman
Journal:  Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol       Date:  2013-07-18       Impact factor: 2.740

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.