Titre
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?
Type
article
Institution
Externe
Périodique
Auteur(s)
Zhao, Y.
Auteure/Auteur
Duran, R.
Auteure/Auteur
Bai, W.
Auteure/Auteur
Sahu, S.
Auteure/Auteur
Wang, W.
Auteure/Auteur
Kabus, S.
Auteure/Auteur
Lin, M.
Auteure/Auteur
Han, G.
Auteure/Auteur
Geschwind, J.F.
Auteure/Auteur
Liens vers les personnes
ISSN
1432-086X
Statut éditorial
Publié
Date de publication
2018-03
Volume
41
Numéro
3
Première page
433
Dernière page/numéro d’article
442
Peer-reviewed
Oui
Langue
anglais
Notes
Publication types: Journal Article
Publication Status: ppublish
Publication Status: ppublish
Résumé
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).
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.
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.
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 2a, retrospective cohort study.
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.
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.
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 2a, retrospective cohort study.
PID Serval
serval:BIB_A126E1F103A6
PMID
Date de création
2017-11-03T13:34:04.176Z
Date de création dans IRIS
2025-05-21T01:49:46Z