nach oben

CardioVascular and Interventional Radiology

Erschienen in:

30.10.2017 | Clinical Investigation

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?

verfasst von: Yan Zhao, Rafael Duran, Wei Bai, Sonia Sahu, Wenjun Wang, Sven Kabus, MingDe Lin, Guohong Han, Jean-François Geschwind

Erschienen in: CardioVascular and Interventional Radiology | Ausgabe 3/2018

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Purpose

Our study aimed to evaluate quantitative tumor response assessment (quantitative EASL-[qEASL]) on computed tomography (CT) images in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) treated using conventional transarterial chemoembolization (cTACE), compared to existing 1-dimensional and 2-dimensional methods (RECIST, mRECIST, EASL).

Materials and Methods

In this IRB-approved, single-institution retrospective cohort study, 52 consecutive patients with intermediate-stage HCC were consecutively included. All patients underwent contrast-enhanced CT scan at baseline and 4 weeks after cTACE.

Results

Median follow-up period was 13.5 months (range 1.2–54.1). RECIST, mRECIST and EASL identified progression in 2 (4%), 1 (2%) and 1 (2%) patients, respectively, whereas qEASL identified 10 (19%) patients. qEASL was the only tumor response method able to predict survival among different tumor response groups (P < 0.05), whereas RECIST, mRECIST and EASL did not (P > 0.05). Both EASL and qEASL were able to identify responders and non-responders and were predictive of survival (P < 0.05). Multivariate analysis showed that progression was an independent predictor of overall survival with hazard ratio of 1.9 (P = 0.025). Patients who demonstrated progression with qEASL had significantly shorter survival than those with non-progression (7.6 vs. 20.4 months, P = 0.012). Similar multivariate analysis using RECIST, mRECIST and EASL could not be performed because too few patients were categorized as progressive disease.

Conclusion

qEASL could be applied on CT images to assess tumor response following cTACE and is a more sensitive biomarker to predict survival and identify tumor progression than RECIST, mRECIST and EASL at an early time point.

Level of Evidence

Level 2a, retrospective cohort study.

European Association For The Study Of The Liver. EASL-EORTC clinical practice guidelines: management of hepatocellular carcinoma. J Hepatol. 2012;56(4):908–43.CrossRef

World Health Organization. Global battle against cancer won’t be won with treatment alone–effective prevention measures urgently needed to prevent cancer crisis. Cent Eur J Public Health. 2014;22(1):23–8.

Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet. 1986;1(8476):307–10.CrossRefPubMed

Bruix J, Sherman M, Llovet JM, et al. Clinical management of hepatocellular carcinoma. Conclusions of the Barcelona-2000 EASL conference. European Association for the Study of the Liver. J Hepatol. 2001;35(3):421–30.CrossRefPubMed

Buerger C, Senegas J, Kabus S, et al. Comparing nonrigid registration techniques for motion corrected MR prostate diffusion imaging. Med Phys. 2015;42(1):69–80.CrossRefPubMed

Chapiro J, Wood LD, Lin M, et al. Radiologic-pathologic analysis of contrast-enhanced and diffusion-weighted MR imaging in patients with HCC after TACE: diagnostic accuracy of 3D quantitative image analysis. Radiology. 2014;273(3):746–58.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Chockalingam A, Duran R, Sohn JH, et al. Radiologic-pathologic analysis of quantitative 3D tumour enhancement on contrast-enhanced MR imaging: a study of ROI placement. Eur Radiol. 2016;26(1):103–13.CrossRefPubMed

de Baere T, Arai Y, Lencioni R, et al. Treatment of liver tumors with lipiodol TACE: technical recommendations from experts opinion. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2016;39(3):334–43.CrossRefPubMed

Duran R, Chapiro J, Frangakis C, et al. Uveal melanoma metastatic to the liver: the Role of quantitative volumetric contrast-enhanced mr imaging in the assessment of early tumor response after transarterial chemoembolization. Transl Oncol. 2014;7(4):447–55.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

10.

Edeline J, Boucher E, Rolland Y, et al. Comparison of tumor response by response evaluation criteria in solid tumors (RECIST) and modified RECIST in patients treated with sorafenib for hepatocellular carcinoma. Cancer. 2012;118(1):147–56.CrossRefPubMed

11.

Eisenhauer EA, Therasse P, Bogaerts J, et al. New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Eur J Cancer. 2009;45(2):228–47.CrossRefPubMed

12.

Forner A, Ayuso C, Varela M, et al. Evaluation of tumor response after locoregional therapies in hepatocellular carcinoma: are response evaluation criteria in solid tumors reliable? Cancer. 2009;115(3):616–23.CrossRefPubMed

13.

Gillmore R, Stuart S, Kirkwood A, et al. EASL and mRECIST responses are independent prognostic factors for survival in hepatocellular cancer patients treated with transarterial embolization. J Hepatol. 2011;55(6):1309–16.CrossRefPubMed

14.

Gonzalez-Guindalini FD, Botelho MP, Harmath CB, et al. Assessment of liver tumor response to therapy: role of quantitative imaging. Radiogr A Rev Publ Radiol Soc N Am Inc. 2013;33(6):1781–800.

15.

Kabus S, Klinder T, Murphy K, van Ginneken B, van Lorenz C, Pluim JP. Evaluation of 4D-CT lung registration. Medical image computing and computer-assisted intervention. MICCAI Int Conf Med Image Comput Comput Assist Interv. 2009;12(1):747–54.

16.

Kim BK, Kim SU, Kim MJ, et al. Number of target lesions for EASL and modified RECIST to predict survivals in hepatocellular carcinoma treated with chemoembolization. Clin Cancer Res Off J Am Assoc Cancer Res. 2013;19(6):1503–11.CrossRef

17.

Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977;33(1):159–74.CrossRefPubMed

18.

Lencioni R, Llovet JM. Modified RECIST (mRECIST) assessment for hepatocellular carcinoma. Semin Liver Dis. 2010;30(1):52–60.CrossRefPubMed

19.

Liapi E, Geschwind JF. Transcatheter arterial chemoembolization for liver cancer: is it time to distinguish conventional from drug-eluting chemoembolization? Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2011;34(1):37–49.CrossRefPubMed

20.

Lin M, Pellerin O, Bhagat N, et al. Quantitative and volumetric European Association for the Study of the Liver and response evaluation criteria in solid tumors measurements: feasibility of a semiautomated software method to assess tumor response after transcatheter arterial chemoembolization. J Vasc Interv Radiol JVIR. 2012;23(12):1629–37.CrossRefPubMed

21.

Liu L, Wang W, Chen H, et al. EASL- and mRECIST-evaluated responses to combination therapy of sorafenib with transarterial chemoembolization predict survival in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. Clin Cancer Res Off J Am Assoc Cancer Res. 2014;20(6):1623–31.CrossRef

22.

Pellerin O, Lin M, Bhagat N, Ardon R, Mory B, Geschwind JF. Comparison of semi-automatic volumetric VX2 hepatic tumor segmentation from cone beam CT and multi-detector CT with histology in rabbit models. Acad Radiol. 2013;20(1):115–21.CrossRefPubMed

23.

Riaz A, Memon K, Miller FH, et al. Role of the EASL, RECIST, and WHO response guidelines alone or in combination for hepatocellular carcinoma: radiologic-pathologic correlation. J Hepatol. 2011;54(4):695–704.CrossRefPubMed

24.

Riaz A, Miller FH, Kulik LM, et al. Imaging response in the primary index lesion and clinical outcomes following transarterial locoregional therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma. JAMA. 2010;303(11):1062–9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

25.

Sahani DV, Kalva SP. Imaging the liver. Oncologist. 2004;9(4):385–97.CrossRefPubMed

26.

Shim JH, Lee HC, Won HJ, et al. Maximum number of target lesions required to measure responses to transarterial chemoembolization using the enhancement criteria in patients with intrahepatic hepatocellular carcinoma. J Hepatol. 2012;56(2):406–11.CrossRefPubMed

27.

Tacher V, Lin M, Chao M, et al. Semiautomatic volumetric tumor segmentation for hepatocellular carcinoma: comparison between C-arm cone beam computed tomography and MRI. Acad Radiol. 2013;20(4):446–52.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

28.

Tacher V, Lin M, Duran R, et al. Comparison of existing response criteria in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma treated with transarterial chemoembolization using a 3D quantitative approach. Radiology. 2016;278(1):275–84.CrossRefPubMed

29.

Therasse P, Arbuck SG, Eisenhauer EA, et al. 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. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2000;92(3):205–16.CrossRefPubMed

30.

Wang Z, Chapiro J, Schernthaner R, et al. Multimodality 3D Tumor Segmentation in HCC Patients Treated with TACE. Acad Radiol. 2015;22(7):840–5.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Titel: 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?
verfasst von: Yan Zhao
Rafael Duran
Wei Bai
Sonia Sahu
Wenjun Wang
Sven Kabus
MingDe Lin
Guohong Han
Jean-François Geschwind
Publikationsdatum: 30.10.2017
Verlag: Springer US
Erschienen in: CardioVascular and Interventional Radiology / Ausgabe 3/2018
Print ISSN: 0174-1551
Elektronische ISSN: 1432-086X
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00270-017-1829-4

Update Radiologie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.

Newsletter bestellen

Springer Medizin

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?