Prognostic relevance of objective response according to EASL criteria and mRECIST criteria in hepatocellular carcinoma patients treated with loco-regional therapies: A literature-based meta-analysis

PLoS ONE

Volumn 10, Issue 7, 2015, Pages

  Vincenzi, Bruno ^a   Di Maio, Massimo ^b,d   Silletta, Marianna ^a   D'Onofrio, Loretta ^a   Spoto, Chiara ^a   Piccirillo, Maria Carmela ^b   Daniele, Gennaro ^b   Comito, Francesca ^a   Maci, Eliana ^a   Bronte, Giuseppe ^c   Russo, Antonio ^c   Santini, Daniele ^a   Perrone, Francesco ^b   Tonini, Giuseppe ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY CAMPUS BIO MEDICO   (Italy)

^b National Cancer Institute   (Italy)

^c UNIVERSITY OF PALERMO   (Italy)

^d UNIVERSITY OF TURIN   (Italy)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CISPLATIN; DOXORUBICIN;

ARTICLE; CANCER CHEMOTHERAPY; CANCER PATIENT; CANCER PROGNOSIS; CANCER STAGING; CANCER SURVIVAL; CANCER THERAPY; CHEMOEMBOLIZATION; CHILD PUGH SCORE; CRYOABLATION; EUROPEAN ASSOCIATION FOR THE STUDY OF THE LIVER CRITERIA; HAZARD RATIO; HUMAN; LIVER CELL CARCINOMA; META ANALYSIS; MODIFIED RESPONSE EVALUATION CRITERIA IN SOLID TUMOR; OVERALL SURVIVAL; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; TREATMENT RESPONSE; VALIDITY; CARCINOMA, HEPATOCELLULAR; LIVER NEOPLASMS; PROGNOSIS; SURVIVAL ANALYSIS; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

CARCINOMA, HEPATOCELLULAR; HUMANS; LIVER NEOPLASMS; PROGNOSIS; SURVIVAL ANALYSIS; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 84942133453     PISSN: None     EISSN: 19326203     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0133488     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Parkin DM, et al. Global cancer statistics, 2002. CA Cancer J Clin, 2005. 55(2): p. 74-108. PMID: 15761078
2. Fattovich G., et al., Hepatocellular carcinoma in cirrhosis: incidence and risk factors. Gastroenterology, 2004. 127(5 Suppl 1): p. S35-50. PMID: 15508101
3. Michelotti GA, Machado MV, Diehl AM. NAFLD, NASH and liver cancer. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol, 2013. 10(11): p. 656-65. doi: 10.1038/nrgastro.2013.183 PMID: 24080776
4. Llovet JM, Burroughs A, Bruix J. Hepatocellular carcinoma. Lancet, 2003. 362(9399): p. 1907-17. PMID: 14667750
5. Ribero D, et al., Selection for resection of hepatocellular carcinoma and surgical strategy: indications for resection, evaluation of liver function, portal vein embolization, and resection. Ann Surg Oncol, 2008. 15(4): p. 986-92. doi: 10.1245/s10434-007-9731-y PMID: 18236112
6. Bruix J, 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): p. 421-30. PMID: 11592607
7. Gonzalez-Guindalini FD, et al. Assessment of liver tumor response to therapy: role of quantitative imaging. Radiographics, 2013. 33(6): p. 1781-800. doi: 10.1148/rg.336135511 PMID: 24108562
8. Lencioni R, Llovet JM. Modified RECIST (mRECIST) assessment for hepatocellular carcinoma. Semin Liver Dis, 2010. 30(1): p. 52-60. doi: 10.1055/s-0030-1247132 PMID: 20175033
9. Prajapati HJ, et al. mRECIST and EASL responses at early time point by contrast-enhanced dynamic MRI predict survival in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) treated by doxorubicin drug-eluting beads transarterial chemoembolization (DEB TACE). Ann Oncol, 2013. 24(4): p. 965-73 doi: 10.1093/annonc/mds605 PMID: 23223331
10. Shim JH, et al. Which response criteria best help predict survival of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma following chemoembolization? A validation study of old and new models. Radiology, 2012. 262 (2): p. 708-18. doi: 10.1148/radiol.11110282 PMID: 22187634
11. Moher D, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-Analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med, 2009. 6(7): p. e1000097. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097 PMID: 19621072
12. DA. Practical Statistics for Medical Research. 1991, London, England: Chapman & Hall.
13. Kim BK, et al., Prospective comparison of prognostic values of modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours with European Association for the Study of the Liver criteria in hepatocellular carcinoma following chemoembolisation. Eur J Cancer, 2013. 49(4): p. 826-34. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2012. 08.022 PMID: 22995582
14. Boatta E, et al. Endovascular treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma with drug eluting microparticles (DC-Beads): CT evaluation of response to the treatment. Indian J Radiol Imaging, 2013. 23(2): p. 126-33 doi: 10.4103/0971-3026.116564 PMID: 24082476
15. Shuster A, et al. Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) criteria are superior to European Association for Study of the Liver (EASL) criteria at 1 month follow-up for predicting long-term survival in patients treated with transarterial chemoembolization before liver transplantation for hepatocellular cancer. J Vasc Interv Radiol, 2013. 24(6): p. 805-12. doi: 10.1016/j.jvir.2013.01.499 PMID: 23562641
16. Price TR, et al. Evaluation of response after stereotactic body radiotherapy for hepatocellular carcinoma. Cancer, 2012. 118(12): p. 3191-8. doi: 10.1002/cncr.26404 PMID: 22025126
17. Riaz A, et al. Imaging response in the primary index lesion and clinical outcomes following transarterial locoregional therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma. JAMA, 2010. 303(11): p. 1062-9. doi: 10.1001/jama.2010.262 PMID: 20233824
18. Lin M, 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, 2012. 23 (12): p. 1629-37. doi: 10.1016/j.jvir.2012.08.028 PMID: 23177109
19. Sato Y, et al. Tumor response evaluation criteria for HCC (hepatocellular carcinoma) treated using TACE (transcatheter arterial chemoembolization): RECIST (response evaluation criteria in solid tumors) version 1.1 and mRECIST (modified RECIST): JIVROSG-0602. Ups J Med Sci, 2013. 118(1): p. 16-22. doi: 10.3109/03009734.2012.729104 PMID: 23167460
20. Lee IJ. Correlating radiologic response criteria with pathologic tumor viability in HCC patients undergoing localized radiation followed by surgical resection. ASCO Meeting Abstracts, 2013. 31(4-suppl): p. 217.
21. Meza-Junco J, et al. Locoregional radiological treatment for hepatocellular carcinoma; Which, when and how? Cancer Treat Rev, 2012. 38(1): p. 54-62. doi: 10.1016/j.ctrv.2011.05.002 PMID: 21726960
22. Duke E, et al. Agreement between competing imaging measures of response of hepatocellular carcinoma to yttrium-90 radioembolization. J Vasc Interv Radiol, 2010. 21(4): p. 515-21. doi: 10.1016/j.jvir. 2009.11.020 PMID: 20172741
23. Choi J, et al. Clinical significance of the best response during repeated transarterial chemoembolization in the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma. J Hepatol, 2014. 60(6): p. 1212-8. doi: 10.1016/j.jhep. 2014.01.014 PMID: 24486088
24. Jung ES, et al. Comparison of the methods for tumor response assessment in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma undergoing transarterial chemoembolization. J Hepatol, 2013. 58(6): p. 1181-7. doi: 10.1016/j.jhep.2013.01.039 PMID: 23395691
25. Gillmore R. 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): p. 1309-16 doi: 10.1016/j.jhep.2011.03.007 PMID: 21703196
26. Li H, et al. EASL and mRECIST responses are independent predictors of survival in hepatocellular carcinoma patients treated with cryoablation. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol, 2013. 25(5): p. 620-7. doi: 10. 1097/MEG.0b013e32835ced13 PMID: 23325276
27. Kim CJ, et al. Radiologic response to transcatheter hepatic arterial chemoembolization and clinical outcomes in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. Liver Int, 2014. 34(2): p. 305-12. doi: 10.1111/liv. 12270 PMID: 23890360
28. Maida M, et al. Assessment of treatment response in hepatocellular carcinoma: a review of the literature. Future Oncol, 2013. 9(6): p. 845-54. doi: 10.2217/fon.13.33 PMID: 23718305