Number of Target Lesions for EASL and Modified RECIST to Predict Survivals in Hepatocellular Carcinoma Treated with Chemoembolization

B. K. Kim, S. U. Kim, M.-J. Kim, K. A. Kim, D. Y. Kim, J. Y. Park, S. H. Ahn, K.-H. Han, C. Y. Chon
2012 Clinical Cancer Research  
Purposes: To date, most studies about the optimal number of target lesions for enhancement criteria for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) have focused on cross-sectional analyses of concordance. We investigated the optimal number of target lesions for European Association for the Study of the Liver (EASL) and modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (mRECIST) guidelines in predicting overall survival (OS). Experimental Design: We analyzed 254 consecutive treatment-na€ ve patients with
more » ... HCC having at least 2 measurable target lesions undergoing transarterial chemoembolization. Kappa values for intermethod agreement of treatment responses were calculated for comparisons between use of maximum of 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 targets versus use of all target lesions. Prognostic values of radiologic assessments according to number of target lesions for predicting OS were expressed as C-index. Results: By EASL and mRECIST guidelines, k values between responses assessing the longest 2, 3, 4, or 5 targets and assessing all targets were 0.924, 0.977, 1.000, or 1.000 and 0.907, 0.959, 1.000, or 1.000, respectively, whereas those between responses assessing only one target and assessing all target lesions were 0.723 and 0.666, respectively. C-index when measuring the longest 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and all targets was similar, ranging from 0.739 to 0.749 for EASL criteria and from 0.750 to 0.759 for mRECIST. From Cox regression analyses, radiologic response from each calculation method showed independently significant effects on OS for both guidelines, regardless of number of target lesions. Conclusions: Prognostic values for predicting OS were similar regardless of number of target lesions. Assessing the 2 largest targets rather than only 1 index lesion could be recommended considering high concordances from cross-sectional analyses.
doi:10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-12-2721 pmid:23225115 fatcat:w6mkg3ibqvajdnlhbnuyklx3ye