Dataset Information

Radiological-pathological analysis of WHO, RECIST, EASL, mRECIST and DWI: Imaging analysis from a prospective randomized trial of Y90 ± sorafenib.

ABSTRACT: The aim of this study was to compare radiological and pathological changes and test the adjunct efficacy of Sorafenib to Y90 as a bridge to transplantation in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). 15 patients with 16 HCC lesions were randomized to Y90 without (Group A, n = 9) or with Sorafenib (Group B, n = 7). Size (WHO, RECIST), enhancement (EASL, mRECIST) and diffusion-weighted imaging criteria (apparent diffusion coefficient, ADC) measurements were obtained at baseline, then at 1 and every 3 months after treatment until transplantation. Percentage necrosis in explanted tumors was correlated with imaging findings. 100%, 50%-99% and <50% pathological necrosis was observed in 6 (67%), 1 (11%), and 2 (22%) tumors in Group A and 3 (42%), 2 (28%), and 2 (28%) in Group B, respectively (P = 0.81). While ADC (P = 0.46) did not change after treatment, WHO (P = 0.06) and RECIST (P = 0.08) response at 1 month failed to reach significance, but significant responses by EASL (P < 0.01/0.03) and mRECIST (P < 0.01/0.03) at 1 and 3 months were observed. Response was equivalent by EASL or mRECIST. No difference in response rates was observed between groups A and B at 1 and 3 months by WHO, RECIST, EASL, mRECIST or ADC measurements. Despite failing to reach significance, smaller baseline size was associated with complete pathological necrosis (CPN) (RECIST: P = 0.07; WHO: P = 0.05). However, a cut-off size of 35 mm was predictive of CPN (P = 0.005). CPN could not be predicted by WHO (P = 0.25 and 0.62), RECIST (P = 0.35 and 0.54), EASL (P = 0.49 and 0.46), mRECIST (P = 0.49 and 0.60) or ADC (P = 0.86 and 0.93).The adjunct of Sorafenib did not augment radiological or pathological response to Y90 therapy for HCC. Equivalent significant reduction in enhancement at 1 and 3 months by EASL/mRECIST was noted. Neither EASL nor mRECIST could reliably predict CPN.

SUBMITTER: Vouche M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5097874 | biostudies-literature | 2013 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Radiological-pathological analysis of WHO, RECIST, EASL, mRECIST and DWI: Imaging analysis from a prospective randomized trial of Y90 ± sorafenib.

Vouche Michael M Kulik Laura L Atassi Rohi R Memon Khairuddin K Hickey Ryan R Ganger Daniel D Miller Frank H FH Yaghmai Vahid V Abecassis Michael M Baker Talia T Mulcahy Mary M Nayar Ritu R Lewandowski Robert J RJ Salem Riad R

Hepatology (Baltimore, Md.) 20131001 5

<h4>Unlabelled</h4>The aim of this study was to compare radiological and pathological changes and test the adjunct efficacy of Sorafenib to Y90 as a bridge to transplantation in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). 15 patients with 16 HCC lesions were randomized to Y90 without (Group A, n = 9) or with Sorafenib (Group B, n = 7). Size (WHO, RECIST), enhancement (EASL, mRECIST) and diffusion-weighted imaging criteria (apparent diffusion coefficient, ADC) measurements were obtained at baseline, then at ...[more]

PMID: 23703789

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe European Association for the Study of the Liver (EASL) criteria and the modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (mRECIST) are currently adopted to evaluate radiological response in patients affected by HCC and treated with loco-regional procedures. Several studies explored the validity of these measurements in predicting survival but definitive data are still lacking.AimTo conduct a systematic review of studies exploring mRECIST and EASL criteria usefulness in predictive radiological response in HCC undergoing loco-regional therapies and their validity in predicting survival.MethodsA comprehensive search of the literature was performed in electronic databases EMBASE, MEDLINE, COCHRANE LIBRARY, ASCO conferences and EASL conferences up to June 10, 2014. Our overall search strategy included terms for HCC, mRECIST, and EASL. Loco-regional procedures included transarterial embolization (TAE), transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) and cryoablation. Inter-method agreement between EASL and mRECIST was assessed using the k coefficient. For each criteria, overall survival was described in responders vs. non-responders patients, considering all target lesions response.ResultsAmong 18 initially found publications, 7 reports including 1357 patients were considered eligible. All studies were published as full-text articles. Proportion of responders according to mRECIST and EASL criteria was 62.4% and 61.3%, respectively. In the pooled population, 1286 agreements were observed between the two methods (kappa statistics 0.928, 95% confidence interval 0.912-0.944). HR for overall survival (responders versus non responders) according to mRECIST and EASL was 0.39 (95% confidence interval 0.26-0.61, p<0.0001) and 0.38 (95% confidence interval 0.24-0.61, p<0.0001), respectively.ConclusionIn this literature-based meta-analysis, mRECIST and EASL criteria showed very good concordance in HCC patients undergoing loco-regional treatments. Objective response according to both criteria confirms a strong prognostic value in terms of overall survival. This prognostic value appears to be very similar between the two criteria.

Project description:ObjectivesResponse Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours version 1.1 (RECIST 1.1) and modified RECIST (mRECIST) are commonly used to assess tumour response. Which one is better to evaluate efficacy after molecular targeted therapies in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients is still controversial. A systemic review was performed to compare the objective response rate (ORR) and disease control rate (DCR) and a meta-analysis was conducted to compare the correlation between objective response and overall survival (OS).DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach.Data sourcesEMBASE, PubMed, Web of Science and Cochrane Library were searched through 31 December 2021.Eligibility criteriaWe included studies assessing the efficacy of molecular targeted therapy for HCC according to both RECIST 1.1 and mRECIST.Data extraction and synthesisTwo investigators extracted data independently. The consistency between RECIST 1.1 vs mRECIST is measured by the k coefficient. HRs with corresponding 95% CIs were used for meta-analysis.Results23 studies comprising 2574 patients were included in systematic review. The ORR according to mRECIST is higher than RECIST1.1 (15.9% vs 7.8%, p<0.001). The DCR is similar (68.4% vs 67.2%, p=0.5). The agreement of tumour response is moderate for objective response (k=0.499) and perfect for progressive disease (k=0.901), calculated from 8 studies including 372 patients. OS was significantly longer in response group than non-response group according to mRECIST (HR 0.56, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.78, p=0.0004) calculated from 7 studies including 566 patients, however, the RECIST1.1 could not distinguish the OS well (HR 0.68, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.05, p=0.08). Subgroup analusis by type of treatment was conducted.ConclusionsmRECIST may be more accurate than RECIST 1.1 in assessing ORR after molecular targeted therapies in HCC patients and can better assess the prognosis. However, the performance of both criteria in assessing disease progression is identical.Prospero registration numberCRD42020200895.Ethics approvalEthics approval is not required in this meta-analysis.

Dataset Information

Radiological-pathological analysis of WHO, RECIST, EASL, mRECIST and DWI: Imaging analysis from a prospective randomized trial of Y90 ± sorafenib.

Publications

Radiological-pathological analysis of WHO, RECIST, EASL, mRECIST and DWI: Imaging analysis from a prospective randomized trial of Y90 ± sorafenib.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets