RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to evaluate whether quantitative enhancement or perfusion measurements on preprocedure triphasic computed tomography (CT) can be used to predict response or overall survival after embolization of hepatocellular carcinoma. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The institutional review board approved this retrospective review of 63 patients with hepatocellular carcinoma treated with particle embolization between March 2009 and December 2014. Quantitative enhancement and perfusion measurements were performed on the target tumor and the background liver on the triphasic CT performed before treatment. Microvascular invasion (MVI) and degree of differentiation were determined from a core biopsy specimen. Quantitative enhancement and perfusion values were then correlated with pathology (two-tailed t test), response to embolization on modified Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors (two-tailed t test), and overall survival after embolization (Cox proportional hazards model). RESULTS: Arterial enhancement did not predict immediate response or overall survival after embolization. The degree of differentiation or presence of MVI also did not predict immediate response or overall survival after embolization. However, high hepatic artery coefficient or low portal vein coefficient, both in the tumor (P = .011 and P = .004) and in the background liver (P = .015 and P = .009), were associated with worse survival. Hepatic artery coefficient, both in the tumor (P = .025) and in the background liver (P = .013), were independent predictors of survival in a multivariate model including the Child-Pugh score and the BCLC stage. CONCLUSIONS: Tumor and liver perfusion parameters estimated from preprocedure triphasic CT were predictive of survival after embolization. Arterial-phase enhancement and histology (degree of differentiation or MVI) did not predict immediate response or overall survival after particle embolization.
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to evaluate whether quantitative enhancement or perfusion measurements on preprocedure triphasic computed tomography (CT) can be used to predict response or overall survival after embolization of hepatocellular carcinoma. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The institutional review board approved this retrospective review of 63 patients with hepatocellular carcinoma treated with particle embolization between March 2009 and December 2014. Quantitative enhancement and perfusion measurements were performed on the target tumor and the background liver on the triphasic CT performed before treatment. Microvascular invasion (MVI) and degree of differentiation were determined from a core biopsy specimen. Quantitative enhancement and perfusion values were then correlated with pathology (two-tailed t test), response to embolization on modified Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors (two-tailed t test), and overall survival after embolization (Cox proportional hazards model). RESULTS: Arterial enhancement did not predict immediate response or overall survival after embolization. The degree of differentiation or presence of MVI also did not predict immediate response or overall survival after embolization. However, high hepatic artery coefficient or low portal vein coefficient, both in the tumor (P = .011 and P = .004) and in the background liver (P = .015 and P = .009), were associated with worse survival. Hepatic artery coefficient, both in the tumor (P = .025) and in the background liver (P = .013), were independent predictors of survival in a multivariate model including the Child-Pugh score and the BCLC stage. CONCLUSIONS:Tumor and liver perfusion parameters estimated from preprocedure triphasic CT were predictive of survival after embolization. Arterial-phase enhancement and histology (degree of differentiation or MVI) did not predict immediate response or overall survival after particle embolization.
Authors: F Edward Boas; Lynn A Brody; Joseph P Erinjeri; Hooman Yarmohammadi; Waleed Shady; Sirish Kishore; Constantinos T Sofocleous Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2016-06-01 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: S Jonas; W O Bechstein; T Steinmüller; M Herrmann; C Radke; T Berg; U Settmacher; P Neuhaus Journal: Hepatology Date: 2001-05 Impact factor: 17.425
Authors: Riad Salem; Andrew C Gordon; Samdeep Mouli; Ryan Hickey; Joseph Kallini; Ahmed Gabr; Mary F Mulcahy; Talia Baker; Michael Abecassis; Frank H Miller; Vahid Yaghmai; Kent Sato; Kush Desai; Bartley Thornburg; Al B Benson; Alfred Rademaker; Daniel Ganger; Laura Kulik; Robert J Lewandowski Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2016-08-27 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: S Herber; S Biesterfeld; U Franz; J Schneider; J Thies; M Schuchmann; C Düber; M B Pitton; G Otto Journal: Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol Date: 2008-01-15 Impact factor: 2.740
Authors: Jan Budczies; Frederick Klauschen; Bruno V Sinn; Balázs Győrffy; Wolfgang D Schmitt; Silvia Darb-Esfahani; Carsten Denkert Journal: PLoS One Date: 2012-12-14 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Nicholas R Perkons; Omar Johnson; Gabrielle Pilla; Enri Profka; Michael Mercadante; Daniel Ackerman; Terence P F Gade Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2020-06-04 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: F Edward Boas; Karen T Brown; Etay Ziv; Hooman Yarmohammadi; Constantinos T Sofocleous; Joseph P Erinjeri; James J Harding; Stephen B Solomon Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2019-05-23 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: F Edward Boas; Nancy E Kemeny; Constantinos T Sofocleous; Randy Yeh; Vanessa R Thompson; Meier Hsu; Chaya S Moskowitz; Etay Ziv; Hooman Yarmohammadi; Achiude Bendet; Stephen B Solomon Journal: Radiology Date: 2021-08-31 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Fuad Nurili; Sebastien Monette; Adam O Michel; Achiude Bendet; Olca Basturk; Gokce Askan; Christopher Cheleuitte-Nieves; Hooman Yarmohammadi; Aaron W P Maxwell; Etay Ziv; Kyle M Schachtschneider; Ron C Gaba; Lawrence B Schook; Stephen B Solomon; F Edward Boas Journal: J Vasc Interv Radiol Date: 2021-01-23 Impact factor: 3.464