F Edward Boas1, Bao Do2, John D Louie3, Nishita Kothary3, Gloria L Hwang3, William T Kuo3, David M Hovsepian3, Mark Kantrowitz4, Daniel Y Sze3. 1. Interventional Radiology Service, Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Ave., New York, NY 10065. Electronic address: boasf@mskcc.org. 2. Veterans Affairs Palo Alto Health Care System, Palo Alto. 3. Department of Radiology, Stanford University Medical Center, Stanford, California. 4. MK Consulting, Las Vegas, Nevada.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To optimize surveillance schedules for the detection of recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) after liver-directed therapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: New methods have emerged that allow quantitative analysis and optimization of surveillance schedules for diseases with substantial rates of recurrence such as HCC. These methods were applied to 1,766 consecutive chemoembolization, radioembolization, and radiofrequency ablation procedures performed on 910 patients between 2006 and 2011. Computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging performed just before repeat therapy was set as the time of "recurrence," which included residual and locally recurrent tumor as well as new liver tumors. Time-to-recurrence distribution was estimated by Kaplan-Meier method. Average diagnostic delay (time between recurrence and detection) was calculated for each proposed surveillance schedule using the time-to-recurrence distribution. An optimized surveillance schedule could then be derived to minimize the average diagnostic delay. RESULTS: Recurrence is 6.5 times more likely in the first year after treatment than in the second. Therefore, screening should be much more frequent in the first year. For eight time points in the first 2 years of follow-up, the optimal schedule is 2, 4, 6, 8, 11, 14, 18, and 24 months. This schedule reduces diagnostic delay compared with published schedules and is cost-effective. CONCLUSIONS: The calculated optimal surveillance schedules include shorter-interval follow-up when there is a higher probability of recurrence and longer-interval follow-up when there is a lower probability. Cost can be optimized for a specified acceptable diagnostic delay or diagnostic delay can be optimized within a specified acceptable cost.
PURPOSE: To optimize surveillance schedules for the detection of recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) after liver-directed therapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: New methods have emerged that allow quantitative analysis and optimization of surveillance schedules for diseases with substantial rates of recurrence such as HCC. These methods were applied to 1,766 consecutive chemoembolization, radioembolization, and radiofrequency ablation procedures performed on 910 patients between 2006 and 2011. Computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging performed just before repeat therapy was set as the time of "recurrence," which included residual and locally recurrent tumor as well as new liver tumors. Time-to-recurrence distribution was estimated by Kaplan-Meier method. Average diagnostic delay (time between recurrence and detection) was calculated for each proposed surveillance schedule using the time-to-recurrence distribution. An optimized surveillance schedule could then be derived to minimize the average diagnostic delay. RESULTS: Recurrence is 6.5 times more likely in the first year after treatment than in the second. Therefore, screening should be much more frequent in the first year. For eight time points in the first 2 years of follow-up, the optimal schedule is 2, 4, 6, 8, 11, 14, 18, and 24 months. This schedule reduces diagnostic delay compared with published schedules and is cost-effective. CONCLUSIONS: The calculated optimal surveillance schedules include shorter-interval follow-up when there is a higher probability of recurrence and longer-interval follow-up when there is a lower probability. Cost can be optimized for a specified acceptable diagnostic delay or diagnostic delay can be optimized within a specified acceptable cost.
Authors: Mishal Mendiratta-Lala; William R Masch; Kimberly Shampain; Andrew Zhang; Alexandria S Jo; Sarah Moorman; Anum Aslam; Katherine E Maturen; Matthew S Davenport Journal: Radiol Imaging Cancer Date: 2020-01-31
Authors: Alexandra Petukhova-Greenstein; Tal Zeevi; Junlin Yang; Nathan Chai; Paul DiDomenico; Yanhong Deng; Maria Ciarleglio; Stefan P Haider; Ifeyinwa Onyiuke; Rohil Malpani; MingDe Lin; Ahmet S Kucukkaya; Luzie A Gottwald; Bernhard Gebauer; Margarita Revzin; John Onofrey; Lawrence Staib; Gowthaman Gunabushanam; Tamar Taddei; Julius Chapiro Journal: J Vasc Interv Radiol Date: 2022-04-20 Impact factor: 3.682
Authors: Enrico Maria Fumarola; Anna Maria Ierardi; Pierpaolo Biondetti; Anna Paola Savoldi; Pasquale Grillo; Giovanna Gorga; Andrea Coppola; Gianpaolo Carrafiello Journal: Med Oncol Date: 2020-04-07 Impact factor: 3.064
Authors: Amit G Singal; Nicole E Rich; Neil Mehta; Andrea Branch; Anjana Pillai; Maarouf Hoteit; Michael Volk; Mobolaji Odewole; Steven Scaglione; Jennifer Guy; Adnan Said; Jordan J Feld; Binu V John; Catherine Frenette; Parvez Mantry; Amol S Rangnekar; Omobonike Oloruntoba; Michael Leise; Janice H Jou; Kalyan Ram Bhamidimarri; Laura Kulik; Tram Tran; Hrishikesh Samant; Renumathy Dhanasekaran; Andres Duarte-Rojo; Reena Salgia; Sheila Eswaran; Prasun Jalal; Avegail Flores; Sanjaya K Satapathy; Robert Wong; Annsa Huang; Suresh Misra; Myron Schwartz; Robert Mitrani; Sasank Nakka; Wassim Noureddine; Chanda Ho; Venkata R Konjeti; Alexander Dao; Kevin Nelson; Kelly Delarosa; Usman Rahim; Meher Mavuram; Jesse J Xie; Caitlin C Murphy; Neehar D Parikh Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2019-01-18 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: Kit-Fai Lee; Charing C N Chong; Anthony K W Fong; Andrew K Y Fung; Hon-Ting Lok; Yue-Sun Cheung; John Wong; Paul B S Lai Journal: Hepatobiliary Surg Nutr Date: 2018-10 Impact factor: 7.293
Authors: Robert Peter Reimer; Nils Große Hokamp; Julius Niehoff; David Zopfs; Simon Lennartz; Mariam Heidar; Roger Wahba; Dirk Stippel; David Maintz; Daniel Pinto Dos Santos; Christian Wybranski Journal: PLoS One Date: 2021-06-15 Impact factor: 3.240