Literature DB >> 28543544

The prognostic utility of the "Tumor Burden Score" based on preoperative radiographic features of colorectal liver metastases.

Kazunari Sasaki1, Georgios A Margonis1, Nikolaos Andreatos1, Xu-Feng Zhang1,2, Stefan Buettner1, Jaeyun Wang1, Amar Deshwar1, Jin He1, Christopher L Wolfgang1, Matthew Weiss1, Timothy M Pawlik1,2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Recently, a tumor-burden "metro ticket" score (TBS) based on final pathology was proposed to predict outcome following resection of colorectal liver metastasis (CRLM). We sought to validate the TBS prognostic tool using preoperative radiologic cross-sectional imaging.
METHODS: Imaging TBS was defined on a Cartesian plane that incorporated both maximum tumor size (x-axis) and lesion number (y-axis) assessed by pre-operative imaging. The discriminatory power (area under the curve [AUC]) and goodness-of-fit (Harrel's C statistic and Somer's D statistics) of the imaging TBS model was assessed.
RESULTS: Imaging and pathologic TBS correlated strongly (r = 0.76, P < 0.01). Among patients treated with neoadjuvant therapy, the correlation was strongest among patients with progressive disease/stable disease (PD/SD) (r = 0.81). Discriminatory power of the imaging-based versus pathology-based TBS models were comparable (AUC 0.64 vs. 0.67, respectively P > 0.05). An incremental worsening of long-term survival was noted as the imaging TBS increased (5-year OS: Zone1, Zone2, and Zone3-61.3%, 46.7%, and 38.5%, respectively; P = 0.03). The imaging-based TBS model outperformed the "classic" pathology-based Fong score (Harrel's C-index: imaging TBS-0.56 vs. Fong score-0.53; Somers'D-index: imaging TBS-012 vs. Fong score-0.06).
CONCLUSIONS: Imaging-based TBS was superior to traditional tumor size and number and was comparable to pathology-based TBS. Imaging-based TBS may have the potential to facilitate improved preoperative risk stratification of patients with CRLM.
© 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Entities:  

Keywords:  TBS; imaging; prognosis

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28543544     DOI: 10.1002/jso.24678

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Surg Oncol        ISSN: 0022-4790            Impact factor:   3.454


  12 in total

1.  Preoperative Controlling Nutritional Status plus Tumor Burden Score for the Assessment of Prognosis after Curative Liver Resection for Hepatocellular Carcinoma.

Authors:  Yasuyuki Fukami; Takuya Saito; Takaaki Osawa; Takashi Arikawa; Tatsuki Matsumura; Shintaro Kurahashi; Shunichiro Komatsu; Kenitiro Kaneko; Tsuyoshi Sano
Journal:  Med Princ Pract       Date:  2020-12-24       Impact factor: 1.927

2.  Genetic And Morphological Evaluation (GAME) score for patients with colorectal liver metastases.

Authors:  G A Margonis; K Sasaki; S Gholami; Y Kim; N Andreatos; N Rezaee; A Deshwar; S Buettner; P J Allen; T P Kingham; T M Pawlik; J He; J L Cameron; W R Jarnagin; C L Wolfgang; M I D'Angelica; M J Weiss
Journal:  Br J Surg       Date:  2018-04-25       Impact factor: 6.939

3.  A Novel TNM Classification for Colorectal Cancers based on the Metro-ticket Paradigm.

Authors:  Jun-Peng Pei; Chun-Dong Zhang; Xiang Fu; Yong Ba; Shuai Yue; Zhe-Ming Zhao; Dong-Qiu Dai
Journal:  J Cancer       Date:  2021-04-05       Impact factor: 4.207

4.  Application of Tumor Burden Score for predicting conversion outcome in patients with initially unresectable colorectal liver metastases after first-line systemic therapy.

Authors:  Jianhong Peng; Yujun Liu; Weihao Li; Yuzhu Lin; Hui Sun; Zhizhong Pan; Xiaojun Wu; Wenhua Fan; Junzhong Lin
Journal:  Therap Adv Gastroenterol       Date:  2021-12-19       Impact factor: 4.409

Review 5.  Artificial intelligence in the diagnosis and management of colorectal cancer liver metastases.

Authors:  Gianluca Rompianesi; Francesca Pegoraro; Carlo Dl Ceresa; Roberto Montalti; Roberto Ivan Troisi
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2022-01-07       Impact factor: 5.742

6.  Effect of tumour size ratio on liver recurrence-free survival of patients undergoing hepatic resection for colorectal liver metastases.

Authors:  Yana Zhai; Weijun Bai; Jin Zhou; Qian Dong; Jingdong Zhang
Journal:  BMC Cancer       Date:  2022-01-25       Impact factor: 4.430

7.  Surgery for Liver Metastasis of Non-Colorectal and Non-Neuroendocrine Tumors.

Authors:  Shadi Katou; Franziska Schmid; Carolina Silveira; Lina Schäfer; Tizian Naim; Felix Becker; Sonia Radunz; Mazen A Juratli; Leon Louis Seifert; Hauke Heinzow; Benjamin Struecker; Andreas Pascher; M Haluk Morgul
Journal:  J Clin Med       Date:  2022-03-29       Impact factor: 4.241

8.  Risk scoring system for recurrence after simultaneous resection of colorectal cancer liver metastasis.

Authors:  Yuchen Wu; Tianan Guo; Zhenhong Xu; Fangqi Liu; Sanjun Cai; Lu Wang; Ye Xu
Journal:  Ann Transl Med       Date:  2021-06

9.  Composite Score: prognostic tool to predict survival in patients undergoing surgery for colorectal liver metastases.

Authors:  Petter Frühling; Jozef Urdzik; Cecilia Strömberg; Bengt Isaksson
Journal:  BJS Open       Date:  2021-09-06

10.  KRAS Assessment Following ESMO Recommendations for Colorectal Liver Metastases. Is It Always Worth It?

Authors:  Olga Morató; Maria Villamonte; Patricia Sánchez-Velázquez; Eva Pueyo-Périz; Luís Grande; Benedetto Ielpo; Edoardo Rosso; Alessandro Anselmo; Fernando Burdío
Journal:  Healthcare (Basel)       Date:  2022-03-03
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.