PURPOSE: Sorafenib induces early vascularity reduction in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). We sought to identify differences in radiological assessment approaches and to evaluate their usefulness for the prediction of the initial response to sorafenib. METHODS: Forty-eight patients with advanced HCC treated with sorafenib were evaluated by four-phase contrast-enhanced computed tomography. All target lesions were analyzed using the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST), the EASL criteria, and modified RECIST (mRECIST). RESULTS: At the initial evaluation at 4-6 weeks, rates of objective response (OR) (including both complete and partial responses), stable disease (SD), and progressive disease (PD) were 2, 71, and 27 %, respectively, according to RECIST; 15, 56, and 29 %, respectively, according to the EASL criteria; and 15, 58, and 27 %, respectively, according to mRECIST. Patients who achieved an OR according to the EASL criteria also achieved an OR according to mRECIST. Patients who achieved an OR according to the EASL criteria or mRECIST had better predicted overall survival (OS) than did patients who achieved SD (p = 0.033 and 0.028, respectively). Patients with SD according to RECIST had different outcomes depending on the response according to enhancement criteria. Patients classified as responders (complete and partial) had better predicted OS than those classified as non-responders (those classified as SD and PD) (p = 0.048). CONCLUSIONS: The enhancement criteria could be useful for prediction of the initial response to sorafenib in patients with HCC. Moreover, mRECIST appears to be simple and convenient.
PURPOSE: Sorafenib induces early vascularity reduction in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). We sought to identify differences in radiological assessment approaches and to evaluate their usefulness for the prediction of the initial response to sorafenib. METHODS: Forty-eight patients with advanced HCC treated with sorafenib were evaluated by four-phase contrast-enhanced computed tomography. All target lesions were analyzed using the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST), the EASL criteria, and modified RECIST (mRECIST). RESULTS: At the initial evaluation at 4-6 weeks, rates of objective response (OR) (including both complete and partial responses), stable disease (SD), and progressive disease (PD) were 2, 71, and 27 %, respectively, according to RECIST; 15, 56, and 29 %, respectively, according to the EASL criteria; and 15, 58, and 27 %, respectively, according to mRECIST. Patients who achieved an OR according to the EASL criteria also achieved an OR according to mRECIST. Patients who achieved an OR according to the EASL criteria or mRECIST had better predicted overall survival (OS) than did patients who achieved SD (p = 0.033 and 0.028, respectively). Patients with SD according to RECIST had different outcomes depending on the response according to enhancement criteria. Patients classified as responders (complete and partial) had better predicted OS than those classified as non-responders (those classified as SD and PD) (p = 0.048). CONCLUSIONS: The enhancement criteria could be useful for prediction of the initial response to sorafenib in patients with HCC. Moreover, mRECIST appears to be simple and convenient.
Authors: George D Demetri; Allan T van Oosterom; Christopher R Garrett; Martin E Blackstein; Manisha H Shah; Jaap Verweij; Grant McArthur; Ian R Judson; Michael C Heinrich; Jeffrey A Morgan; Jayesh Desai; Christopher D Fletcher; Suzanne George; Carlo L Bello; Xin Huang; Charles M Baum; Paolo G Casali Journal: Lancet Date: 2006-10-14 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Arndt Weinmann; Ina Maria Niederle; Sandra Koch; Maria Hoppe-Lotichius; Michael Heise; Christoph Düber; Marcus Schuchmann; Gerd Otto; Peter Robert Galle; Marcus-Alexander Wörns Journal: Dig Liver Dis Date: 2012-01-20 Impact factor: 4.088
Authors: K James; E Eisenhauer; M Christian; M Terenziani; D Vena; A Muldal; P Therasse Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 1999-03-17 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Andrew X Zhu; Thomas A Abrams; Rebecca Miksad; Lawrence S Blaszkowsky; Jeffrey A Meyerhardt; Hui Zheng; Alona Muzikansky; Jeffrey W Clark; Eunice L Kwak; Deborah Schrag; Kathryn R Jors; Charles S Fuchs; A John Iafrate; Darrell R Borger; David P Ryan Journal: Cancer Date: 2011-04-27 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Richard S Finn; Yoon-Koo Kang; Mary Mulcahy; Blase N Polite; Ho Yeong Lim; Ian Walters; Christine Baudelet; Demetrios Manekas; Joong-Won Park Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2012-01-11 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Robert S Benjamin; Haesun Choi; Homer A Macapinlac; Michael A Burgess; Shreyaskumar R Patel; Lei L Chen; Donald A Podoloff; Chuslip Charnsangavej Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2007-05-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: E A Eisenhauer; P Therasse; J Bogaerts; L H Schwartz; D Sargent; R Ford; J Dancey; S Arbuck; S Gwyther; M Mooney; L Rubinstein; L Shankar; L Dodd; R Kaplan; D Lacombe; J Verweij Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2009-01 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Josep M Llovet; Sergio Ricci; Vincenzo Mazzaferro; Philip Hilgard; Edward Gane; Jean-Frédéric Blanc; Andre Cosme de Oliveira; Armando Santoro; Jean-Luc Raoul; Alejandro Forner; Myron Schwartz; Camillo Porta; Stefan Zeuzem; Luigi Bolondi; Tim F Greten; Peter R Galle; Jean-François Seitz; Ivan Borbath; Dieter Häussinger; Tom Giannaris; Minghua Shan; Marius Moscovici; Dimitris Voliotis; Jordi Bruix Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2008-07-24 Impact factor: 91.245