Literature DB >> 26131913

Comparison of Existing Response Criteria in Patients with Hepatocellular Carcinoma Treated with Transarterial Chemoembolization Using a 3D Quantitative Approach.

Vania Tacher1, MingDe Lin1, Rafael Duran1, Hooman Yarmohammadi1, Howard Lee1, Julius Chapiro1, Michael Chao1, Zhijun Wang1, Constantine Frangakis1, Jae Ho Sohn1, Mitchell Gil Maltenfort1, Timothy Pawlik1, Jean-François Geschwind1.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To compare currently available non-three-dimensional methods (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors [RECIST], European Association for Study of the Liver [EASL], modified RECIST [mRECIST[) with three-dimensional (3D) quantitative methods of the index tumor as early response markers in predicting patient survival after initial transcatheter arterial chemoembolization (TACE).
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a retrospective single-institution HIPAA-compliant and institutional review board-approved study. From November 2001 to November 2008, 491 consecutive patients underwent intraarterial therapy for liver cancer with either conventional TACE or TACE with drug-eluting beads. A diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) was made in 290 of these patients. The response of the index tumor on pre- and post-TACE magnetic resonance images was assessed retrospectively in 78 treatment-naïve patients with HCC (63 male; mean age, 63 years ± 11 [standard deviation]). Each response assessment method (RECIST, mRECIST, EASL, and 3D methods of volumetric RECIST [vRECIST] and quantitative EASL [qEASL]) was used to classify patients as responders or nonresponders by following standard guidelines for the uni- and bidimensional measurements and by using the formula for a sphere for the 3D measurements. The Kaplan-Meier method with the log-rank test was performed for each method to evaluate its ability to help predict survival of responders and nonresponders. Uni- and multivariate Cox proportional hazard ratio models were used to identify covariates that had significant association with survival.
RESULTS: The uni- and bidimensional measurements of RECIST (hazard ratio, 0.6; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.3, 1.0; P = .09), mRECIST (hazard ratio, 0.6; 95% CI: 0.6, 1.0; P = .05), and EASL (hazard ratio, 1.1; 95% CI: 0.6, 2.2; P = .75) did not show a significant difference in survival between responders and nonresponders, whereas vRECIST (hazard ratio, 0.6; 95% CI: 0.3, 1.0; P = .04), qEASL (Vol) (hazard ratio, 0.5; 95% CI: 0.3, 0.9; P = .02), and qEASL (%) (hazard ratio, 0.3; 95% CI: 0.15, 0.60; P < .001) did show a significant difference between these groups.
CONCLUSION: The 3D-based imaging biomarkers qEASL and vRECIST were tumor response criteria that could be used to predict patient survival early after initial TACE and enabled clear identification of nonresponders. © RSNA, 2015.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26131913      PMCID: PMC4695977          DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2015142951

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiology        ISSN: 0033-8419            Impact factor:   11.105


  40 in total

1.  Estimating the world cancer burden: Globocan 2000.

Authors:  D M Parkin; F Bray; J Ferlay; P Pisani
Journal:  Int J Cancer       Date:  2001-10-15       Impact factor: 7.396

2.  New guidelines to evaluate the response to treatment in solid tumors. European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer, National Cancer Institute of the United States, National Cancer Institute of Canada.

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

3.  Number of target lesions for EASL and modified RECIST to predict survivals in hepatocellular carcinoma treated with chemoembolization.

Authors:  Beom Kyung Kim; Seung Up Kim; Myeong-Jin Kim; Kyung Ah Kim; Do Young Kim; Jun Yong Park; Sang Hoon Ahn; Kwang-Hyub Han; Chae Yoon Chon
Journal:  Clin Cancer Res       Date:  2012-12-07       Impact factor: 12.531

4.  Imaging response in the primary index lesion and clinical outcomes following transarterial locoregional therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma.

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

Review 5.  Modified RECIST (mRECIST) assessment for hepatocellular carcinoma.

Authors:  Riccardo Lencioni; Josep M Llovet
Journal:  Semin Liver Dis       Date:  2010-02-19       Impact factor: 6.115

6.  CT assessment of tumour response to treatment: comparison of linear, cross-sectional and volumetric measures of tumour size.

Authors:  S A Sohaib; B Turner; J A Hanson; M Farquharson; R T Oliver; R H Reznek
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2000-11       Impact factor: 3.039

7.  Unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: MR imaging after intraarterial therapy. Part II. Response stratification using volumetric functional criteria after intraarterial therapy.

Authors:  Susanne Bonekamp; Vivek Gowdra Halappa; Jean-François H Geschwind; Zhen Li; Celia Pamela Corona-Villalobos; Diane Reyes; Nikhil Bhagat; David P Cosgrove; Timothy M Pawlik; Esteban Mezey; John Eng; Ihab R Kamel
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2013-04-24       Impact factor: 11.105

Review 8.  Assessment of liver tumor response to therapy: role of quantitative imaging.

Authors:  Fernanda D Gonzalez-Guindalini; Marcos P F Botelho; Carla B Harmath; Kumaresan Sandrasegaran; Frank H Miller; Riad Salem; Vahid Yaghmai
Journal:  Radiographics       Date:  2013-10       Impact factor: 5.333

9.  Evaluation of tumor response after locoregional therapies in hepatocellular carcinoma: are response evaluation criteria in solid tumors reliable?

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

10.  Management of hepatocellular carcinoma: an update.

Authors:  Jordi Bruix; Morris Sherman
Journal:  Hepatology       Date:  2011-03       Impact factor: 17.425

View more
  40 in total

1.  Which Criteria Applied in Multi-Phasic CT Can Predict Early Tumor Response in Patients with Hepatocellular Carcinoma Treated Using Conventional TACE: RECIST, mRECIST, EASL or qEASL?

Authors:  Yan Zhao; Rafael Duran; Wei Bai; Sonia Sahu; Wenjun Wang; Sven Kabus; MingDe Lin; Guohong Han; Jean-François Geschwind
Journal:  Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol       Date:  2017-10-30       Impact factor: 2.740

Review 2.  Artificial intelligence in assessment of hepatocellular carcinoma treatment response.

Authors:  Bradley Spieler; Carl Sabottke; Ahmed W Moawad; Ahmed M Gabr; Mustafa R Bashir; Richard Kinh Gian Do; Vahid Yaghmai; Radu Rozenberg; Marielia Gerena; Joseph Yacoub; Khaled M Elsayes
Journal:  Abdom Radiol (NY)       Date:  2021-03-31

Review 3.  Management of unresectable intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: how do we decide among the various liver-directed treatments?

Authors:  Eugene J Koay; Bruno C Odisio; Milind Javle; Jean-Nicolas Vauthey; Christopher H Crane
Journal:  Hepatobiliary Surg Nutr       Date:  2017-04       Impact factor: 7.293

4.  The impact of antiangiogenic therapy combined with Transarterial Chemoembolization on enhancement based quantitative tumor response assessment in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma.

Authors:  Susanne Smolka; Julius Chapiro; Wilfred Manzano; John Treilhard; Eric Reiner; Yanhong Deng; Yan Zhao; Bernd Hamm; James S Duncan; Bernhard Gebauer; MingDe Lin; Jean-François Geschwind
Journal:  Clin Imaging       Date:  2017-06-07       Impact factor: 1.605

5.  Neutrophil-to-lymphocyte and platelet-to-lymphocyte ratios as predictors of tumor response in hepatocellular carcinoma after DEB-TACE.

Authors:  Isabel Theresa Schobert; Lynn Jeanette Savic; Julius Chapiro; Khaled Bousabarah; Evan Chen; Fabian Laage-Gaupp; Jonathan Tefera; Nariman Nezami; MingDe Lin; Jeffrey Pollak; Todd Schlachter
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2020-05-19       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 6.  Interventional Oncology in Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Progress Through Innovation.

Authors:  Lin Mu; Julius Chapiro; Jeremiah Stringam; Jean-François Geschwind
Journal:  Cancer J       Date:  2016 Nov/Dec       Impact factor: 3.360

7.  Non-measurable infiltrative HCC: is post-contrast attenuation on CT a sign of tumor response?

Authors:  Hasmik Koulakian; Wassim Allaham; Valérie Vilgrain; Maxime Ronot
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2018-11-09       Impact factor: 5.315

8.  Validation of the Hong Kong Liver Cancer Staging System in Determining Prognosis of the North American Patients Following Intra-arterial Therapy.

Authors:  Jae Ho Sohn; Rafael Duran; Yan Zhao; Florian Fleckenstein; Julius Chapiro; Sonia Sahu; Rüdiger E Schernthaner; Tianchen Qian; Howard Lee; Li Zhao; James Hamilton; Constantine Frangakis; MingDe Lin; Riad Salem; Jean-Francois Geschwind
Journal:  Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2016-11-12       Impact factor: 11.382

9.  Predicting Treatment Response to Intra-arterial Therapies for Hepatocellular Carcinoma with the Use of Supervised Machine Learning-An Artificial Intelligence Concept.

Authors:  Aaron Abajian; Nikitha Murali; Lynn Jeanette Savic; Fabian Max Laage-Gaupp; Nariman Nezami; James S Duncan; Todd Schlachter; MingDe Lin; Jean-François Geschwind; Julius Chapiro
Journal:  J Vasc Interv Radiol       Date:  2018-03-14       Impact factor: 3.464

Review 10.  Volumetric analysis at abdominal CT: oncologic and non-oncologic applications.

Authors:  Virginia B Planz; Meghan G Lubner; Perry J Pickhardt
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2018-11-30       Impact factor: 3.039

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.