Does imaging response predict survival in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC)? We studied the ability of posttherapeutic imaging response to predict overall survival. Over 14 years, 948 patients with HCC were treated with radioembolization. Patients with baseline metastases, vascular invasion, multifocal disease, Child-Pugh > B7, and transplanted/resected were excluded. This created our homogeneous study cohort of 134 patients with Child-Pugh ≤ B7 and solitary HCC. Response (using European Association for Study of the Liver [EASL] and Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors 1.1 [RECIST 1.1] criteria) was associated with survival using Landmark and risk-of-death methodologies after reviewing 960 scans. In a subanalysis, survival times of responders were compared to those of patients with stable disease (SD) and progressive disease (PD). Uni/multivariate survival analyses were performed at each Landmark. At the 3-month Landmark, responders survived longer than nonresponders by EASL (hazard ratio [HR], 0.46; confidence interval [CI], 0.26-0.82; P = 0.002) but not RECIST 1.1 criteria (HR, 0.70; CI, 0.37-1.32; P = 0.32). At the 6-month Landmark, responders survived longer than nonresponders by EASL (HR, 0.32; CI, 0.15-0.77; P < 0.001) and RECIST 1.1 criteria (HR, 0.50; CI, 0.29-0.87; P = 0.021). At the 12-month Landmark, responders survived longer than nonresponders by EASL (HR, 0.34; CI, 0.15-0.77; P < 0.001) and RECIST 1.1 criteria (HR, 0.52; CI 0.27-0.98; P = 0.049). At 6 months, risk of death was lower for responders by EASL (P < 0.001) and RECIST 1.1 (P = 0.0445). In subanalyses, responders lived longer than patients with SD or PD. EASL response was a significant predictor of survival at 3-, 6-, and 12-month Landmarks on uni/multivariate analyses. CONCLUSION: Response to radioembolization in patients with solitary HCC can prognosticate improved survival. EASL necrosis criteria outperformed RECIST 1.1 size criteria in predicting survival. The therapeutic objective of radioembolization should be radiologic response and not solely to prevent progression. (Hepatology 2018;67:873-883).
Does imaging response predict survival in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC)? We studied the ability of posttherapeutic imaging response to predict overall survival. Over 14 years, 948 patients with HCC were treated with radioembolization. Patients with baseline metastases, vascular invasion, multifocal disease, Child-Pugh > B7, and transplanted/resected were excluded. This created our homogeneous study cohort of 134 patients with Child-Pugh ≤ B7 and solitary HCC. Response (using European Association for Study of the Liver [EASL] and Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors 1.1 [RECIST 1.1] criteria) was associated with survival using Landmark and risk-of-death methodologies after reviewing 960 scans. In a subanalysis, survival times of responders were compared to those of patients with stable disease (SD) and progressive disease (PD). Uni/multivariate survival analyses were performed at each Landmark. At the 3-month Landmark, responders survived longer than nonresponders by EASL (hazard ratio [HR], 0.46; confidence interval [CI], 0.26-0.82; P = 0.002) but not RECIST 1.1 criteria (HR, 0.70; CI, 0.37-1.32; P = 0.32). At the 6-month Landmark, responders survived longer than nonresponders by EASL (HR, 0.32; CI, 0.15-0.77; P < 0.001) and RECIST 1.1 criteria (HR, 0.50; CI, 0.29-0.87; P = 0.021). At the 12-month Landmark, responders survived longer than nonresponders by EASL (HR, 0.34; CI, 0.15-0.77; P < 0.001) and RECIST 1.1 criteria (HR, 0.52; CI 0.27-0.98; P = 0.049). At 6 months, risk of death was lower for responders by EASL (P < 0.001) and RECIST 1.1 (P = 0.0445). In subanalyses, responders lived longer than patients with SD or PD. EASL response was a significant predictor of survival at 3-, 6-, and 12-month Landmarks on uni/multivariate analyses. CONCLUSION: Response to radioembolization in patients with solitary HCC can prognosticate improved survival. EASL necrosis criteria outperformed RECIST 1.1 size criteria in predicting survival. The therapeutic objective of radioembolization should be radiologic response and not solely to prevent progression. (Hepatology 2018;67:873-883).
Authors: Osman Öcal; Kerstin Schütte; Christoph J Zech; Christian Loewe; Otto van Delden; Vincent Vandecaveye; Chris Verslype; Bernhard Gebauer; Christian Sengel; Irene Bargellini; Roberto Iezzi; Alexander Philipp; Thomas Berg; Heinz J Klümpen; Julia Benckert; Maciej Pech; Antonio Gasbarrini; Holger Amthauer; Peter Bartenstein; Bruno Sangro; Peter Malfertheiner; Jens Ricke; Max Seidensticker Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2022-08-02 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Alexander S Pasciak; Godwin Abiola; Robert P Liddell; Nathan Crookston; Sepideh Besharati; Danielle Donahue; Richard E Thompson; Eric Frey; Robert A Anders; Matthew R Dreher; Clifford R Weiss Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2019-11-18 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Andrew C Gordon; Vanessa L Gates; Sarah B White; Kathleen R Harris; Daniel Procissi; Zhuoli Zhang; Weiguo Li; Donald Samaan; Jodi R Nicolai; Samdeep K Mouli; Kent T Sato; Robert K Ryu; Reed A Omary; Riad Salem; Robert J Lewandowski; Andrew C Larson Journal: J Vasc Interv Radiol Date: 2020-11-12 Impact factor: 3.464
Authors: William E L Ormiston; Hooman Yarmohammadi; Stephanie Lobaugh; Juliana Schilsky; Seth S Katz; Maria LaGratta; Sara Velayati; Junting Zheng; Marinela Capanu; Richard K G Do Journal: Abdom Radiol (NY) Date: 2020-09-24
Authors: Alexander Villalobos; William Wagstaff; Mian Guo; James Zhang; Zachary Bercu; Morgan J Whitmore; Mircea M Cristescu; Bill S Majdalany; Joel Wedd; Mehmet Akce; Joseph Magliocca; Nima Kokabi Journal: Can J Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2021-07-22