PURPOSE: To retrospectively evaluate agreement between modified RECIST (mRECIST) assessed at Computed Tomography (CT) and pathology in a large series of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) who were transplanted after transarterial chemoembolization (TACE). MATERIALS AND METHODS: IRB approval was obtained. The study included 178 patients (M/F=155/23; mean age 55.8 ± 6.3 years) with HCC who were transplanted after TACE from January 1996 to December 2010 and with at least one CT examination before liver transplantation (LT). Two blinded independent readers retrospectively reviewed CT examinations, to assess tumor response to TACE according to mRECIST. Patients were classified in responders (complete and partial response) and non-responders (stable and progressive disease). On the explanted livers, percentage of tumor necrosis was classified as 100, >50 and <50%. RESULTS: The mean interval between latest CT and LT was 57.4 ± 39.8 days. At latest CT examination, the objective response rate was 78.1% (139/178), with 86 cases (48.3%) of complete response (CR). A good intra- (k=0.75 and 0.86) and inter-observer (k=0.81) agreement was obtained. On a per-patient basis, agreement between mRECIST and pathology was obtained in 120 patients (67.4%), with 19 cases (10.7%) of underestimation and 39 cases (21.9%) of overestimation of tumor response at CT. CT sensitivity and specificity in differentiating between responders and non-responders were 93 and 82.9%, respectively. Out of 302 nodules, sensitivity and specificity of CT in detecting complete necrosis were 87.5 and 68.9%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS:CT can overestimate tumor response after TACE. Nonetheless, mRECIST assessed at CT after TACE are reproducible and reliable in differentiating responders and non-responders.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: To retrospectively evaluate agreement between modified RECIST (mRECIST) assessed at Computed Tomography (CT) and pathology in a large series of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) who were transplanted after transarterial chemoembolization (TACE). MATERIALS AND METHODS: IRB approval was obtained. The study included 178 patients (M/F=155/23; mean age 55.8 ± 6.3 years) with HCC who were transplanted after TACE from January 1996 to December 2010 and with at least one CT examination before liver transplantation (LT). Two blinded independent readers retrospectively reviewed CT examinations, to assess tumor response to TACE according to mRECIST. Patients were classified in responders (complete and partial response) and non-responders (stable and progressive disease). On the explanted livers, percentage of tumor necrosis was classified as 100, >50 and <50%. RESULTS: The mean interval between latest CT and LT was 57.4 ± 39.8 days. At latest CT examination, the objective response rate was 78.1% (139/178), with 86 cases (48.3%) of complete response (CR). A good intra- (k=0.75 and 0.86) and inter-observer (k=0.81) agreement was obtained. On a per-patient basis, agreement between mRECIST and pathology was obtained in 120 patients (67.4%), with 19 cases (10.7%) of underestimation and 39 cases (21.9%) of overestimation of tumor response at CT. CT sensitivity and specificity in differentiating between responders and non-responders were 93 and 82.9%, respectively. Out of 302 nodules, sensitivity and specificity of CT in detecting complete necrosis were 87.5 and 68.9%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: CT can overestimate tumor response after TACE. Nonetheless, mRECIST assessed at CT after TACE are reproducible and reliable in differentiating responders and non-responders.
Authors: Kibo Nam; Maria Stanczak; Andrej Lyshchik; Priscilla Machado; Yuko Kono; Flemming Forsberg; Colette M Shaw; John R Eisenbrey Journal: Biomed Phys Eng Express Date: 2018-04-18
Authors: Raj Vasnani; Michael Ginsburg; Osman Ahmed; Taral Doshi; John Hart; Helen Te; Thuong Gustav Van Ha Journal: Hepatobiliary Surg Nutr Date: 2016-06 Impact factor: 7.293
Authors: Andrea Veltri; Carlo Gazzera; Marco Calandri; Francesco Marenco; Andrea Doriguzzi Breatta; Paolo Fonio; Giovanni Gandini Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2015-05-31 Impact factor: 3.469
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