These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: 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?
    Author: Zhao Y, Duran R, Bai W, Sahu S, Wang W, Kabus S, Lin M, Han G, Geschwind JF.
    Journal: Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol; 2018 Mar; 41(3):433-442. PubMed ID: 29086058.
    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.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]