PURPOSE: To evaluate interreader and inter-test agreement in applying size- and necrosis-based response assessment criteria after transarterial embolization (TAE) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), applying two different methods of European Association for the Study of the Liver (EASL) criteria. METHODS: Seventy-four patients (median age, 67 years) from a prospectively accrued study population were included in this retrospective study. Four radiologists independently evaluated CT data at 2-3 (1st follow-up, FU) and 10-12 (2nd FU) weeks after TAE and assessed treatment response using size-based (WHO, RECIST) and necrosis-based (mRECIST, EASL) criteria. Enhancing tissue was bidimensionally measured (EASLmeas) and also visually estimated (EASLest). Interreader and inter-test agreements were assessed using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and κ statistics. RESULTS: Interreader agreement for all response assessment methods ranged from moderate to substantial (κ = 0.578-0.700) at 1st FU and was substantial (κ = 0.716-0.780) at 2nd FU. Inter-test agreement was substantial between WHO and RECIST (κ = 0.610-0.799, 1st FU; κ = 0.655-0.782, 2nd FU) and excellent between EASLmeas and EASLest (κ = 0.899-0.918, 1st FU; κ = 0.843-0.877, 2nd FU). CONCLUSION: Size- and necrosis-based criteria both show moderate to excellent interreader agreement in evaluating treatment response after TAE for HCC. Inter-test agreement regarding EASLmeas and EASLest was excellent, suggesting that either may be used. KEY POINTS: • Applying EASL criteria, visual estimation and bidimensional measurements show comparable interreader agreement. • EASL meas and EASL est show substantial interreader agreement for treatment response in HCC. • Agreement was excellent for EASL meas and EASL est after TAE of HCC. • Visual estimation of enhancement is adequate to assess treatment response of HCC.
PURPOSE: To evaluate interreader and inter-test agreement in applying size- and necrosis-based response assessment criteria after transarterial embolization (TAE) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), applying two different methods of European Association for the Study of the Liver (EASL) criteria. METHODS: Seventy-four patients (median age, 67 years) from a prospectively accrued study population were included in this retrospective study. Four radiologists independently evaluated CT data at 2-3 (1st follow-up, FU) and 10-12 (2nd FU) weeks after TAE and assessed treatment response using size-based (WHO, RECIST) and necrosis-based (mRECIST, EASL) criteria. Enhancing tissue was bidimensionally measured (EASLmeas) and also visually estimated (EASLest). Interreader and inter-test agreements were assessed using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and κ statistics. RESULTS: Interreader agreement for all response assessment methods ranged from moderate to substantial (κ = 0.578-0.700) at 1st FU and was substantial (κ = 0.716-0.780) at 2nd FU. Inter-test agreement was substantial between WHO and RECIST (κ = 0.610-0.799, 1st FU; κ = 0.655-0.782, 2nd FU) and excellent between EASLmeas and EASLest (κ = 0.899-0.918, 1st FU; κ = 0.843-0.877, 2nd FU). CONCLUSION: Size- and necrosis-based criteria both show moderate to excellent interreader agreement in evaluating treatment response after TAE for HCC. Inter-test agreement regarding EASLmeas and EASLest was excellent, suggesting that either may be used. KEY POINTS: • Applying EASL criteria, visual estimation and bidimensional measurements show comparable interreader agreement. • EASL meas and EASL est show substantial interreader agreement for treatment response in HCC. • Agreement was excellent for EASL meas and EASL est after TAE of HCC. • Visual estimation of enhancement is adequate to assess treatment response of HCC.
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: Ihab R Kamel; Eleni Liapi; Diane K Reyes; Marianna Zahurak; David A Bluemke; Jean-François H Geschwind Journal: Radiology Date: 2009-02 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Ajita Deodhar; Lynn A Brody; Anne M Covey; Karen T Brown; George I Getrajdman Journal: J Vasc Interv Radiol Date: 2011-06 Impact factor: 3.464
Authors: Renumathy Dhanasekaran; David A Kooby; Charles A Staley; John S Kauh; Vinit Khanna; Hyun S Kim Journal: J Surg Oncol Date: 2010-05-01 Impact factor: 3.454
Authors: Ahsun Riaz; Frank H Miller; Laura M Kulik; Paul Nikolaidis; Vahid Yaghmai; Robert J Lewandowski; Mary F Mulcahy; Robert K Ryu; Kent T Sato; Ramona Gupta; Ed Wang; Talia Baker; Michael Abecassis; Al B Benson; Albert A Nemcek; Reed Omary; Riad Salem Journal: JAMA Date: 2010-03-17 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Ahsun Riaz; Khairuddin Memon; Frank H Miller; Paul Nikolaidis; Laura M Kulik; Robert J Lewandowski; Robert K Ryu; Kent T Sato; Vanessa L Gates; Mary F Mulcahy; Talia Baker; Ed Wang; Ramona Gupta; Ritu Nayar; Al B Benson; Michael Abecassis; Reed Omary; Riad Salem Journal: J Hepatol Date: 2010-10-23 Impact factor: 25.083
Authors: Alejandro Forner; Carmen Ayuso; María Varela; Jordi Rimola; Amelia J Hessheimer; Carlos Rodriguez de Lope; María Reig; Luís Bianchi; Josep M Llovet; Jordi Bruix Journal: Cancer Date: 2009-02-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Ania Kielar; Kathryn J Fowler; Sara Lewis; Vahid Yaghmai; Frank H Miller; Hooman Yarmohammadi; Charles Kim; Victoria Chernyak; Takeshi Yokoo; Jeffrey Meyer; Isabel Newton; Richard K Do Journal: Abdom Radiol (NY) Date: 2018-01
Authors: Victoria Chernyak; Kathryn J Fowler; Aya Kamaya; Ania Z Kielar; Khaled M Elsayes; Mustafa R Bashir; Yuko Kono; Richard K Do; Donald G Mitchell; Amit G Singal; An Tang; Claude B Sirlin Journal: Radiology Date: 2018-09-25 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Jun Sik Yoon; Dong Hyun Sinn; Jeong-Hoon Lee; Hwi Young Kim; Cheol-Hyung Lee; Sun Woong Kim; Hyo Young Lee; Joon Yeul Nam; Young Chang; Yun Bin Lee; Eun Ju Cho; Su Jong Yu; Hyo-Cheol Kim; Jin Wook Chung; Yoon Jun Kim; Jung-Hwan Yoon Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2019-11-04 Impact factor: 6.639