Imaging Response in the Primary Index Lesion and Clinical Outcomes Following Transarterial Locoregional Therapy for Hepatocellular Carcinoma
- 17 March 2010
- journal article
- research article
- Published by American Medical Association (AMA)
- Vol. 303 (11), 1062-9
- https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2010.262
Abstract
Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) (unidimensional), World Health Organization (WHO) (bidimensional), and European Association for Study of the Liver (EASL) (necrosis) guidelines are commonly used to assess response following therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). No universally accepted standard exists. To evaluate intermethod agreement between these 3 imaging guidelines and to introduce the concept of the "primary index lesion" as a biomarker for response. Single-center comprehensive imaging analysis including 245 consecutive patients with HCC who were treated with chemoembolization or radioembolization between January 2000 and December 2008. Computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging scans (N = 1065) were reviewed to assess response in the "primary index lesion," defined as the largest tumor targeted during first treatment. Intermethod agreement (kappa statistics) between RECIST, WHO, and EASL guidelines response; correlation of WHO and EASL response in the primary index lesion with time to progression and survival. Kappa coefficients were 0.86 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.80-0.92) between the WHO and RECIST guidelines, 0.24 (95% CI, 0.16-0.33) between RECIST and EASL, and 0.28 (95% CI, 0.19-0.36) between WHO and EASL. Disease progressed in 96 patients; 113 died. The hazard ratio for time to progression in responders compared with nonresponders was 0.36 (95% CI, 0.23-0.57) for WHO, 0.38 (95% CI, 0.24-0.58) for RECIST, and 0.38 (95% CI, 0.22-0.64) for EASL. Hazard ratios for survival in responders compared with nonresponders in univariate and multivariate analyses were 0.46 (95% CI, 0.32-0.67) and 0.55 (95% CI, 0.35-0.84) for WHO and 0.36 (95% CI, 0.22-0.57) and 0.54 (95% CI, 0.34-0.85) for EASL. Hazard ratios for survival in responders vs nonresponders in patients with solitary and multifocal HCC were 0.39 (95% CI, 0.19-0.77) and 0.51 (95% CI, 0.32-0.82) for WHO and 0.26 (95% CI, 0.10-0.67) and 0.47 (95% CI, 0.28-0.79) for EASL. Among a group of patients with HCC, agreement for classification of therapeutic response was high between the RECIST and WHO guidelines but low between each of these and EASL. Application of these methods to measure response in a primary index lesion resulted in statistically significant correlations with disease progression and survival.Keywords
This publication has 31 references indexed in Scilit:
- Radiologic–Pathologic Correlation of Hepatocellular Carcinoma Treated with ChemoembolizationCardioVascular and Interventional Radiology, 2009
- Alpha-Fetoprotein Response After Locoregional Therapy for Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Oncologic Marker of Radiologic Response, Progression, and SurvivalJournal of Clinical Oncology, 2009
- Evaluation of the Optimal Number of Lesions Needed for Tumor Evaluation Using the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors: A North Central Cancer Treatment Group InvestigationJournal of Clinical Oncology, 2009
- Radiologic–pathologic correlation of hepatocellular carcinoma treated with internal radiation using yttrium-90 microspheres #Hepatology, 2009
- New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: Revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1)European Journal Of Cancer, 2009
- Sorafenib in Advanced Hepatocellular CarcinomaNew England Journal of Medicine, 2008
- Transcatheter Arterial Chemoembolization of Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Prevalence and Causative Factors of Extrahepatic Collateral Arteries in 479 PatientsKorean Journal of Radiology, 2006
- Hepatocellular carcinoma and hepatitis C in the United StatesHepatology, 2002
- Clinical Management of Hepatocellular Carcinoma. Conclusions of the Barcelona-2000 EASL ConferenceJournal of Hepatology, 2001
- New Guidelines to Evaluate the Response to Treatment in Solid TumorsJNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 2000